Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Tue, 19 July 2011 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 670F021F85EA for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.744
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 7aSTGtWGT3T3 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:34:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1C021F86B6 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acmse02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6J4YgaD028032 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:34:42 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3952_e7d6_6bc7e9fc_b1c0_11e0_a9d2_001d0969ab06; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:34:42 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:52737) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S153051C> for <ltru@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:34:42 +0900
Message-ID: <4E250933.9080007@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:33:55 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
References: <SNT142-w47E796198D72F223478656B3470@phx.gbl> <4E1E9857.1090209@cs.tut.fi> <4E23F565.2040606@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E23FF3E.5090008@cs.tut.fi> <CAJ2xs_EptgENRM_15jFzmtoq_dKicJWt7mCJHsHjRhk6PbpLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_EptgENRM_15jFzmtoq_dKicJWt7mCJHsHjRhk6PbpLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:34:48 -0000

On 2011/07/19 8:36, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> Mark
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:39, Jukka K. Korpela<jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>  wrote:
>
>> 18.07.2011 11:57, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>
>>   There are certainly cases where there's more than the source and target
>>> language and script involved. But on the other hand, there are also
>>> cases where there's not really a target language.

>>   An example would be what can currently be denoted by ja-Latn-hepburn.My
>>> understanding is that such cases are also supposed to be covered by -t.
>>> How would such cases look? How much more time and effort (than for a
>>> variant subtag) would be required for registration.

>> As far as I can see, ja-Latin-hepburn as such is unambiguous, because the
>> Hepburn system does not depend on “target” language (or language context, as
>> I would say).
>
>
> Agreed. For those mechanisms that are only used with a specific source
> script, the -t- extension is not needed.

Makes sense. Does the draft currently say so? If not, can this be added. 
I think this is important in order to not get into a discussion like 
"but we have the -t extension, so go to Unicode" for such cases.

Regards,   Martin.