Re: [Ltru] Extended language tags

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Fri, 05 October 2007 04:16 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idebc-0000n8-PE; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:16:05 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Idebb-0000f9-HU for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:16:03 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Idebb-0000Lk-5Z for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:16:03 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.64]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdebW-0004Lb-Hy for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:15:58 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=Od3cSFVo5NV5V1y44oVMqQl2AEOcc6Hnv1nv0kszOsfLu8Z6pPD4h1il5TFlnE+H; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.105.34.248] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IdebV-0002Gv-K5 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:15:57 -0400
Message-ID: <000a01c80706$faa3dbe0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: ltru@ietf.org
References: <E1IdT7z-0001vv-Ly@megatron.ietf.org> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A597AC370@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <9d70cb000710041801k44ee5016u7374af1e1a17f6bc@mail.gmail.com> <000001c806f1$a041a200$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <9d70cb000710041936l7ec4e361w770e9ae873cec4d2@mail.gmail.com><9d70cb000710041940w6df2268auc851423adba66511@mail.gmail.com> <003901c80701$c202bc20$46083460$@net>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Extended language tags
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:19:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a4beb055f130b31a84537d0fcb6dda27850348cba474feb8350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.34.248
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Don Osborn" <dzo@bisharat.net>
> To: "'Andrew Cunningham'" <lang.support@gmail.com>; <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Extended language tags
...
> Which seems to be saying that in this case there is need for an appropriate level of
> imprecision in the tagging, and that this is met by the macrolanguage code alone
> (which is in 639-3 also, as I read it). I'm thinking that this is not so much the
> exception, but a situation that can arise with many other (macro)languages where
> there is no formal standard.
...

I think we're mostly agreed on the need to be able to do this.  The
question that we need to resolve is which of three choices to make:

(1) include the macrolanguage information in the registry and 
reflect it in the encoding of the language tag for the newly-added
languages which are encompassed by a macrolanguage

(2) do not include the macrolanguage information in the encoding
of the language tag, but do include it in the registry so intelligent
matching algorithms can act as though the information had been supplied

(3) do not include the macrolanguage information in the tag encoding,
and do not include it in the registry.

There are other possibilities, but these seem to be the most defensible.
Which of these makes the most sense seems to depend on the use case
one has in mind.  Overstating merely to drive home the point:  The
discussion of Dinka seems to favor (1).  Discussion of Norwegian
leads one to favor (2).  Discussion of Breton leads one to (3).

As co-chair...

At this moment, the discussion seems to favor (1), but it's clear that
we need to work through what we'd want do to the matching specification
before we could declare consensus on this.  If we find that an update
to the matching specification is necessary, we'll need to ask our AD
to get the IESG to add it to our charter.

Randy



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru