Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Debbie Garside" <> Thu, 07 July 2011 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FE321F8971 for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.036
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TEXT=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPaQeAMd72Z5 for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A46E21F8947 for <>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 14:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ICTPC ([]) by with MailEnable ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:22:10 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?'Mark_Davis_=E2=98=95'?= <>
References: <> <> <> <075f01cc3cbf$0f04ba90$2d0e2fb0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:23:43 +0100
Message-ID: <07e001cc3cec$269db580$73d92080$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_07E1_01CC3CF4.88621D80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: Acw84ZMXAd+nTwj0T1e9QOQ4KzYzLwACgHPQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'Pete Resnick' <>, 'CLDR list' <>, 'LTRU Working Group' <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:22:08 -0000

Mark wrote:


>> The consortium is already the Registration Authority for ISO 15924 (Scripts).


My company (GeoLang) is RA for ISO 639-6 (language encoding) it doesn’t mean we should be the Registrar for an IETF extension subtag.


On the subject of ISO 639-6, I am ready to re-write RFC 5646 for their inclusion.  The data will be ready by the time the RFC is accepted.


Best regards






From: [] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: 07 July 2011 21:07
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: Mykyta Yevstifeyev; Pete Resnick; LTRU Working Group; CLDR list
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext


These are not primary language subtags or variants, as covered by BCP47. That still remains as it has been.


This is a different area, part of an extension that is to provide a structured approach to the specification of transliteration. The development of extensions and their scope is covered by BCP47, and you can find the details there.


The Unicode CLDR committee is already serves as the registrar for the -u- extension. The committee operates under the procedures in, but the vast majority of decisions are taken by consensus. The consortium is already the Registration Authority for ISO 15924 (Scripts).



— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 09:00, Debbie Garside <> wrote:

I am also concerned about the structure of the Unicode Committee and voting rights. Perhaps someone can explain how this will work and why it is required in addition to the current structure for the registration of language tags.


Have I missed something here? (I probably have as I have been away from the list for some time)  Have Unicode already taken over some of the duties of the BCP47 registrar?


Best wishes




From: [] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?

Sent: 07 July 2011 15:43
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Cc: Pete Resnick;

Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext


Thanks for the feedback. We can make those corrections.


One question. The primary reason that we chose to use a BCP was primarily because it provided a stable reference; the underlying RFCs can (and have) changed while "BCP47" has remained the same. Listing the current RFCs somewhat undercuts that. Note: if that is the practice we should do it, but it seems odd.



— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> wrote:


I've identified the following issue in the draft.

Section 2.2 says:

   The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form:
     | Label  | ABNF                    | Comment                    |
     | t_ext= | "t"                     | Extension                  |
     |        | ("-" lang *("-" field)  | Source + optional field(s) |
     |        | / 1*("-" field))        | Field(s) only (no source)  |
     | lang=  | language                | [BCP47 <> ], with restrictions |
     |        | ["-" script]            |                            |
     |        | ["-" region]            |                            |
     |        | *("-" variant)          |                            |
     | field= | sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum) | With restrictions          |
     | sep=   | 1ALPHA 1DIGIT           | Subtag separators          |

I should note that, first of all, reference to RFC 5234 is missing; moreover, and this is more important, making the ABNF definition in the form of table makes such definition an invalid one, in terms of RFC 5234.  Also, there are a number of ABNF nits here.  So, please consider changing this to:

   The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form, defined
   using ABNF [RFC5234] in <t-ext> rule:
     t-ext    = "t" ("-" lang *("-" field) / 1*("-" field))
     lang     = langtag
     field    = sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum)
     sep      = ALPHA DIGIT
     alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT
   where <langta> rule is specified in BCP 47 [BCP47], <ALPHA> and <DIGIT>
   rules - in RFC 5234 [RFC5234].

Also, the minors comments on references.  Reference to BCP 47 should include both references to RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, like:

   [BCP47]    Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags", 
              BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.
              Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.

...and, referencing UTS 35 you shouldn't reference specific parts of the document; this should be done in the text.  Finally, I don't see where [US-ASCII] is used in the text.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

07.07.2011 2:49, Pete Resnick wrote: 

Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got a chance to review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a look at the ltru archive  <> <> and send any comments to the list since that's where discussion seems to be taking place.




Ltru mailing list