Re: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646

"Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com> Thu, 25 June 2009 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <addison@amazon.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BA328C116 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMkv3675+iIY for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com [207.171.184.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F1C3A6D90 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.42,285,1243814400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="236126521"
Received: from smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com ([172.20.19.24]) by smtp-border-fw-out-9101.sea19.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 Jun 2009 00:35:18 +0000
Received: from ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com [10.248.163.22]) by smtp-in-0201.sea3.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n5P0ZBPn020829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:35:11 GMT
Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.30]) by ex-hub-4101.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.22]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:03 -0700
From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:35:01 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646
Thread-Index: Acn1IzHAnbsNVoMWRjC4EfaUP8lJwgAB7XJQ
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AAA08A5E@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
References: <BLU109-W233AF30EBDADC34BE1E5B3B3370@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU109-W233AF30EBDADC34BE1E5B3B3370@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AAA08A5EEXSEA5Dantama_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:35:08 -0000

I support eliminating the discussion of language negotiation altogether. It really belongs in a discussion of matching.

If we must have it, it is useful to glance at RFC 4647. The term “fallback” is used extensively with the Lookup matching scheme. But there is a very precise term we’ve established when talking about the “fallback in extremis”: Section 3.4.1 uses “default value” (and there is a long discussion there of the topic). If we must have something like this text, then perhaps:

--

    - It does not contain information about appropriate default values to use in language matching [RFC 4647, Section 3.4.1]. A good default value for a particular language request might be linguistically unrelated to the languages specified in the request. For example, people who use Breton (a Celtic language used in western France) might prefer to be served French (a Romance language) if Breton isn't available.
--

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: CE Whitehead [mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:26 PM
To: ltru@ietf.org
Cc: kent.karlsson14@comhem.se; Phillips, Addison
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646


Hi, if the only problem is the use of the terms, 'fallback' and 'backup' I'd change 'appropriate fallback choices' to 'appropriate alternative languages' or 'appropriate alternative language choices'  maybe; I don't know about West and Northwest really I'm confused try Atlantic coast?:

"It does not contain information about appropriate alternative languages (in language negotiation).  A good alternate might in fact be linguistically unrelated to the language it serves as an alternate for.  This is because the preference for a particular language alternate is often the result of outside factors--such as geograpphy, history, or culture--factors which may vary from user to user.   For example, most people who use Breton (a Celtic language used in Brittany/on a portion of the Atlantic coast of France) would probably prefer to be served French (a Romance language) if Breton isn't available."

(hope I've used 'alternate' and 'alternative' correctly).

Best,

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com<mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com>