Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-transliteration-tags-01.txt

Yoshito, Addison, and I had had an action for a while now from the CLDR
committee to submit a draft for a an extension. Rather than go through all
the problems in the falk draft, we put together an alternative approach,
leveraging the work we already did for the -u- extension.

It just got posted at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00

Courtney, I think this provides a superset of the functionality that you are
interested in. Perhaps you can read it over, and we can add you as an author
of the next version of this draft instead of having the two competing
proposals.

Mark

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:50, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>wrote:

> Hi -
>
> I started out with an off-list response, but I figure this is
> something worth sending to the list.
>
> Off-list, a contributor asked:
>
> ...
> > I'd love to see your input. I'd like to make sure I understand
> > all the concerns. Is there any way you could forward this to the list?
>
> My response:
>
> Sorry, already deleted.  As I recall, the main concerns were
>
>  (1) there already *is* support for identifying orthographies
>      (remember German?)
>  (2) the I-D seems to assume that transliterations always result
>      in "Latin" (previous discussion on LTRU included transliterations
>      to Cyrillic and Hangul, among others)
>  (3) the "original orthography" is irrelevant for the transliteration
>      systems I've been able to think of.  (At the same time, some
>      transliteration systems are quite "lossy" and some don't do
>      "round trip" very well.)  Consider also the transliteration of
> material
>      which was originally in audio form...
>  (4) The draft doesn't clearly distinguish "orthography" from
> "transliteration".
>      This may be because the boundary between the two can be fuzzy, but
> even
>      that is an issue that should be addressed.
>  (5) How this fits in with *transcription* systems (e.g. IPA) should be
>      addressed.  The boundary gets fuzzy with orthographies that are
> equivalent
>      to phonemic representations of the language.  (e.g., Pinyin for
> Mandarin)
>  (6) The proposed singleton usage appears broken and unnecessary.
>
> Or something like that.  I may have forgotten something here, or, in the
> process of reconstruction, thought of something I missed the first time.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>