Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Leif Halvard Silli 2008-05-22 04.12:
> Mark Davis 2008-05-20 22.44:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> > > Mark Davis 2008-05-16 23.15:
>   
> >>> What happens for other language tags that change? Like serbian
> >>> (serbian remains the same, but data tagged at the region level will
> >>> change.)  Needing to support zh + cmn isn't that different than
> >>> other common scenarios.
> >>>
> >> Right, I've been saying all along that this is the same issue with
> >> any predominant encompassed language.  As it is the same issue as
> >> with any predominant region variant of English, for instance.
> >
> > 
> > I have no idea what you mean by this.
>
>
> I am not surprised that you say so.
>
> Basically, for English the "remove from right" language fallback 
> negotiation method works all the time.
>   

What I mean is: You constantly diminish the need for automatic fallback, 
and emphasize the problems: it could happen that this solution creates 
some problems.

Could it not happen that your proposal creates problems? And what are they?

You also say emphasize that sometimes "same macrolanguage" do not mean 
that the different encompassed language speakers can understand each 
other. Ok, it could happen.

You also brings up very artificial things like the socalled 
discrimination someone could fell if they cannot have their own single 
tag. (I think both 'zh-yue' and 'yue' should be possible, though, so I 
go free from that "problem".)

I say: treat Macrolanguages (including their encompassed languages) 
equally to your own, English language. You rely on automatic fallback 
for your language. Let macrolanguage users have the same opportunity.

You and others also emphasize that "The users know best. Let them choose."

I say, that, in my own experience, belonging to a minority of a 
macrolanguage, one of the things that is harming us most, is that we 
must constantly be so damned conscious about everything. People hate 
being conscious all the time.

Many public web pages in Norway are in both Nynorsk and Bokmål. But if 
Bokmål is served by default, and I understand what I read, why shall I 
click on the Nynorsk link? It *must* work automatically. Or else it 
doesn't work.

This will be the same for the Chinese (macro)language in those places 
where Mandarin is dominating. The Mandarin dominanse is so strong that 
if saying "I prefer Cantonese" only leads to trouble, then people will 
not say it. It is much easier to say "I prefer Chinese, preferrably in 
the form of Cantonese". It *must* be easy to state which encompassed 
langague one prefers. Or else, the reality often is that there isn't 
much of a choice.

In fact, this is a choice about values.

Finally, the standpoint that we should not have extlang tags is OK in 
itself. One can be a strong supporter of multilingualism and so on, yet 
still have that view.

But you not only support this viewpoint, but are in addition getting all 
those that *could* have supported you - provided it was properly 
implemented and taking full notice of all the problems -  against you 
because you are demonstrating that you are, IMHO, neglecting the 
problems which the extlang tags were supposed to bridge.

So, what sanity is there in writing into the spec that the dominant 
language can tagged with the macrolanguag tag? Do we need to bang in 
open doors?

It is, however, crucial to emphasize that the minority language can be 
tagged that way. It is they who are loosing the battle. If the spec 
should correct and state something very firmly, then is that that it is 
not only legal, but often very useful, to tag minority encompassed 
languages that way.

This is even more important to state since it seems that not even all in 
this group get this point very well.
-- 
leif halvard silli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru