IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] zh != Mandarin

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Thu, 05 June 2008 20:34 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 9A3EB28C10F; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:30 -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 C2BEF28C109 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 O2BGWGkDs7uN for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCCE28C10F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.46.187) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:34 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.46]) by tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.46.187]) with mapi; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:34:34 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:34:32 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] zh != Mandarin
Thread-Index: AcjGqpuHvgXUND/rT66zQ/8a5JuJtQAOUFzKAAMyKAAACreuAAAIs4qAAALRKYA=
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633368187B@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <AQHIxgLu9AlGx5cj/0mtkmlbJHUiWQ==><C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561BFAA260C@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <30b660a20806041822o6d4b40edy457ed403e67d2895@mail.gmail.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561BFAA261A@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <15f501c8c6f2$2a53a810$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633368156C@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251BA07@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
In-Reply-To: <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251BA07@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] zh != Mandarin
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

> From: Broome, Karen [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com]

> I agree that zh-cmn or cmn SHOULD be used. zh will remain valid and
> includes both Mandarin and Cantonese, so MUST is too strong.
>
> I think this is the last of the disagreement. Mark Davis believes "zh"
> SHOULD be used. Could we straw poll that?

SHOULD be used for what? For any Mandarin? I can't speak for him, but I'd guess his position would be that, for some application scenarios, zh is what should be used for Mandarin, but that we shouldn't make that recommendation across the board -- and I'd agree with that. Every application has to evaluate what makes best sense.

Where there is no reason not to do so and any potential need to differentiate, then I think Mandarin content should be tagged zh-cmn / cmn.

Where there are particular reasons for doing so, I have no problem if implementers of some application decide that, for their purposes, all Mandarin content should be tagged zh. And if someone has no reason why not to tag zh-cmn / cmn but they believe they will never have a need to differentiate and decide they just want to tag their Mandarin content as zh, I don't care at all: it's their prerogative to tag Chinese content as Chinese. And if they decide to describe their content to users as "Mandarin", I might say, "Be careful that doesn't come back to bite you later on," but then leave them to take their own risks.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email