Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Sun, 24 July 2011 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=Upy/wF=2L=ewellic.org=doug@srs.bis6.us.blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C4721F869D for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.070, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WlDAte9yKwZo for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp05.bis6.us.blackberry.com (smtp05.bis6.us.blackberry.com [74.82.85.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1EB21F85FF for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from b15.c19.bise6.blackberry ([192.168.0.115]) by srs.bis6.us.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p6OLctEK030354; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:38:55 GMT
Received: from 172.29.212.206 (cmp36.c19.bise6.blackberry [172.29.212.206]) by b15.c19.bise6.blackberry (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p6OLcocR018296; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:38:50 GMT
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 90856584
Message-ID: <90856584-1311543530-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-289235175-@b17.c19.bise6.blackberry>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: Normal
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
To: "Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>, "=?utf-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?=" <mark@macchiato.com>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:38:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: doug@ewellic.org
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:42:03 -0000

'Zxxx' originally did mean "code for unwritten languages," at least in ISO 15924, but there's no way anyone could interpret "en-Zxxx" or "ja-Zxxx" as meaning those languages are unwritten. Thus I'm not sure where the ambiguity lies.

If it really is necessary to use BCP 47 tags to indicate explicitly whether content is written or spoken, then 'Zxxx' is the tool for the job. But I still wonder how slippery this slope might turn out to be--spoken vs. sung, handwritten vs. typed vs. painted on a sign, etc.

--
Doug Ewell • doug@ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T