IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 03 June 2008 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9083A3A6875; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
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 2922F3A6911 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mjL8DamZagzn for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCAD3A6875 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=bUCSfxWBgpLUMDJKtMlT0pMwo7XbPgcdml/RLOoZc7rO89aK+4/pBuTwSfBw8yYL; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.164.89.73] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1K3bB8-0004x6-UL for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:24:15 -0400
Message-ID: <008e01c8c5a7$1ba88b60$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><6.0.0.20.2.20080527170755.05bd89c0@localhost><002f01c8c024$0dcdb5c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><6.0.0.20.2.20080528163346.074fac80@localhost><001f01c8c122$0cbcae80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C314@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com><007601c8c1bc$84d93920$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><104f01c8c1d8$94ad6f30$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><30b660a20805291559x4f6243a8pecc7ee92c2a36d9c@mail.gmail.com><E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B4FC@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com><30b660a20805300911j1713bff0xa7e8e468e039d42@mail.gmail.com> <1EEB09866D70AA48A93C0D9EB7237F0B014C231039@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:24:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a63b7957ab9b23b3d77555a1e34af49f938d86f4fa9b1dd0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.164.89.73
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Broome, Karen" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
> To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
...
> I think what bothers me more than extlang or no-extlang is the narrowing
> I perceive in "zh" that seems to come with the no-extlang strategy.
> The historic registrations of other tags (such as zh-yue and zh-min-nan)
> clearly shows that "zh" has always included Cantonese and other Asian
> languages. Yes, I know that a very overwhelming number of these documents
> are in written Mandarin. But we have an overall rule that indicates the valid tag
> is the shortest tag that represents the language. It seems like you are indicating
> that "zh" is the shortest tag for Mandarin, but not Cantonese after RFC 4646bis.
> How can this be true without there being a narrowing?

I share this concern.  It must be crystal clear that 'zh' does NOT mean Mandarin,
but rather any kind of Chinese.  Of course, there are cases where one might
deliberately be imprecise in tagging, but we should not be so sloppy in our
own definitions to equate the label for the superset with the subset, just as
we must avoid falsely limiting 'de' to "Standard German" or 'ar' to "Standard
Arabic".  (I recognize that this concern is largely independent of the
syntactic decision to use or not use extlang.)

...
> I don't have a whole lot of insight into some of the other languages that use
> extlang. I'm wondering if the users of those languages have similar issues
> where there may be mutually intelligible written forms that are not mutually
> intelligible when spoken (or vice versa).

We need to recognize that there are cases where having
an extlang might make sense, but none is available, so
the extlang approach doesn't help.  Some examples:
  - spoken Serbian and Croatian
  - Romanian and Moldovan.  

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email