Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang

"Randy Presuhn" <> Tue, 17 July 2007 20:23 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAtZX-0006iW-Tw; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:23:03 -0400
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IAtZX-0006iO-DG for; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:23:03 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAtZX-0006iG-3a for; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:23:03 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAtZV-0006XC-Os for; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:23:03 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=EgbxJNXONoo5iXjGxBjjALz2rVn3V6BkGejMsIanl43N0FLasoLLGIGa0JtGBT3J; 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 [] (helo=oemcomputer) by with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IAtZV-0007mh-8u for; Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:23:01 -0400
Message-ID: <001601c7c8b0$68b15580$6601a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <>
To: LTRU Working Group <>
References: <> <013b01c7c6a8$55cb4a20$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81><> <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:23:58 -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: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888fa44b31bb60a935617b474493ebd656aa49a57f90451a834350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hi -

(as a technical contributor)

Perhaps it would be helpful to take a step back and consider
some goals (and non-goals) here.  For example:

Goal 1a: do not trigger retagging of existing ar-* and zh-* materials.
Goal 1b: do not trigger retagging of existing tagged material in other languages
Goal 2: avoid introducing "synonym" tags - there should be a single tag for a given language
Goal 3: minimize changes to matching specification

Non-goal 1: using the registry to solve the general problem of fallback
Non-goal 2: identification of all language varieties in a single subtag

I also think it should be a non-goal that the tag for a language being introduced to
the registry for the first time would have to look like existing tags.  Since
by definition there's no legacy of existing tagged data to worry about (goals
1a and 1b don't apply) we should strive to uphold goal 1c in whatever scheme
we decide to use.

I think the key issue underneath this is whether there are any cases similar to
ar-* or zh-* in the data to be added, and whether supporting those cases in
a similar manner is worthwhile.  Rather than a theoretical discussion of fallbacks
in general, I'd like to see identification of the specific worthwhile cases among
the languages slated for addition.  If there are such beasts and they are deemed
worthwhile, we should make provision in the registry format and procedures to
handle them.  If not, then we should go with the simplest approach that will
let us attain our other goals.


Ltru mailing list