Re: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants

[Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>]

At 10:53 07/02/20, Martin Hosken wrote:

>Neither do I want to reopen that debate. But I do have some basic
>questions that I hope you can help with. Let's take the example of
>scouse English in IPA. How would I tag this?
>
>en-Latn-scouse-fonipa
>en-Latn-fonipa-scouse
>en-fonipa-scouse
>en-scouse-fonipa
>
>Now if I were to want to get hold of any scouse text in IPA, what should
>my RFC 4647 filter be?
>
>en-*-fonipa-scouse
>en-*-scouse-fonipa
>
>do I really need to have two filters for this?

As Mark said, an interesting question, and one that we haven't
yet addressed, probably mostly just because we didn't have that
many variants yet.

Using alphabetical order would be one solution, but the results
may look a bit too unnatural. Using 'major before minor' would
work in general, but in many cases, there will be different opinions.

Should we change RFC 4647 to say that the order of variants doesn't
count? Are there other aspects of our syntax where the same problem
arises? It seems to happen at least for extensions.

>> My opinion is that variants by their nature are a bit of a catch-all
>> category, and it will always be necessary to update software to some
>> extent to reflect changes in the Registry.  You will need to do that
>> anyway if you wish to make semantic use of the subtags (for example,
>> switching to an IPA-enabled font upon seeing the "fonipa" subtag).
>
>Given the number of orthography variants in languages around the world,
>I wonder what the best way to handle them all is. Do we (I'm thinking
>SIL with its involvement in so many languages and linguists with their
>test orthographies, etc.) need to submit every single one, or would it
>help you guys if we were to internally register them (perhaps using a
>singleton based extension) and then forward the interesting ones to you?

If you want to use a singleton extension, then you have to apply
for it, andReceived: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJLZs-0001CE-9R
	for [e-mail]; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:22:04 -0500
Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HJLZp-0000G0-KU
	for [e-mail]; Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:22:04 -0500
Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16])
	by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id
	l1K3Lmgf001729
	for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:21:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp
	id 64f4_7fa337b2_c091_11db_80ae_0014221fa3c9;
	Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:21:47 +0900
Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:58904)
	by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server]
	id <S79D51> for <[e-mail]> from <[e-mail]>;
	Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:20:51 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20070220120742.07672b80@localhost>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:13:52 +0900
To: Martin Hosken <[e-mail]>, Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>
From: Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<005901c752c1$3f5fb0b0$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
	<[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Cc: LTRU Working Group <[e-mail]>
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
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:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

At 10:53 07/02/20, Martin Hosken wrote:

>Neither do I want to reopen that debate. But I do have some basic
>questions that I hope you can help with. Let's take the example of
>scouse English in IPA. How would I tag this?
>
>en-Latn-scouse-fonipa
>en-Latn-fonipa-scouse
>en-fonipa-scouse
>en-scouse-fonipa
>
>Now if I were to want to get hold of any scouse text in IPA, what should
>my RFC 4647 filter be?
>
>en-*-fonipa-scouse
>en-*-scouse-fonipa
>
>do I really need to have two filters for this?

As Mark said, an interesting question, and one that we haven't
yet addressed, probably mostly just because we didn't have that
many variants yet.

Using alphabetical order would be one solution, but the results
may look a bit too unnatural. Using 'major before minor' would
work in general, but in many cases, there will be different opinions.

Should we change RFC 4647 to say that the order of variants doesn't
count? Are there other aspects of our syntax where the same problem
arises? It seems to happen at least for extensions.

>> My opinion is that variants by their nature are a bit of a catch-all
>> category, and it will always be necessary to update software to some
>> extent to reflect changes in the Registry.  You will need to do that
>> anyway if you wish to make semantic use of the subtags (for example,
>> switching to an IPA-enabled font upon seeing the "fonipa" subtag).
>
>Given the number of orthography variants in languages around the world,
>I wonder what the best way to handle them all is. Do we (I'm thinking
>SIL with its involvement in so many languages and linguists with their
>test orthographies, etc.) need to submit every single one, or would it
>help you guys if we were to internally register them (perhaps using a
>singleton based extension) and then forward the interesting ones to you?

If you want to use a singleton extension, then you have to apply
for it, and once you applied, you would keep you own registry.
There would not be a need to forward interesting ones to the
general registry, as everybody can take the variants from your
registry if they need them. The problem might be that the
singleton extensions were imagined for 'by-topic' extensions,
and your registry could end up with all kinds of extensions.

Regards,    Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]     


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru



 once you applied, you would keep you own registry.
There would not be a need to forward interesting ones to the
general registry, as everybody can take the variants from your
registry if they need them. The problem might be that the
singleton extensions were imagined for 'by-topic' extensions,
and your registry could end up with all kinds of extensions.

Regards,    Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]     


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru