[Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix with more than one subtag
"Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com> Tue, 10 July 2007 05:57 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I88ik-0000fV-Ie; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:57:10 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I88ij-0000fQ-EJ for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:57:09 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I88ii-0000fG-T9 for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:57:09 -0400
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I88ii-00030Q-Jb for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:57:08 -0400
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([76.167.184.182]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20070710055635.TUNW19079.mta11.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:56:35 -0400
Message-ID: <006501c7c2b7$126dd4e0$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1I7Chz-0004HK-Kx@megatron.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:56:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix with more than one subtag
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> replied to Stéphane Bortzmeyer: >> First subtag(s) in the registry with a prefix which is more than one >> subtag. (And, yes, it triggered a bug in my programs.) > > You've got to think ahead with those unit tests :-). I must admit that > we've improved the text in draft-4646bis. In 4646 there is an example > (and a paragraph of text) identifying this case, but it is the section > on variant rather than in section 3. Now It Can Be Told: Stéphane's bug finally motivated me to, um, add complex-prefix support to my own tag-generating and -analyzing program, which I'd talked about quite a bit but had never released, due to (a) lack of said support and (b) lack of an installer package (which may be solved shortly). While adding support for complex prefixes, I noticed that there is still some wiggle room in the rules about which variants should and should not be used with which prefixes. Here is the relevant passage from draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06, Section 2.2.5, which is unchanged from RFC 4646: << Most variants that share a prefix are mutually exclusive. For example, the German orthographic variations '1996' and '1901' SHOULD NOT be used in the same tag, as they represent the dates of different spelling reforms. A variant that can meaningfully be used in combination with another variant SHOULD include a 'Prefix' field in its registry record that lists that other variant. For example, if another German variant 'example' were created that made sense to use with '1996', then 'example' should include two Prefix fields: "de" and "de-1996". >> A human can easily see that "de-1901-1996" and "sl-rozaj-njiva" are meaningless, because the variants are clearly contradictory. But a few variants with the same prefix can in fact be used together, such as "en-scouse-fonipa" or "en-boont-fonipa". In fact, 'fonipa' and 'fonupa' have no prefix and can thus theoretically be used with any tag, but some combinations like "el-monoton-fonipa" are inappropriate nonetheless. I can't think of a clean way to tell software which variants can be used together and which cannot, beyond the clear rule that all subtags in the prefix must be present -- for example, you can't use 'njiva' unless both 'sl' and 'rozaj' are both present. At http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/prefix-anomaly.html you can find an illustration of this situation. The drop-down list of variant subtags for "sl-rozaj" shows not only the reasonable choices, like 'fonipa' (no prefix) and 'njiva' (prefix = "sl-rozaj"), but also the inappropriate 'nedis' (prefix = "sl"). What information is available in either RFC 4646(bis) or in the Registry that would help software to make this decision? Does a prefix of "language with no variant" mean that the variant should not be used in the presence of any other variant? How does one determine that "en-scouse-fonipa" is OK while "el-monoton-fonipa" is not? -- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] Registry change of the day: prefix with mo… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [Ltru] Publication of language subtag registratio… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Registry change of the day: prefix wit… Addison Phillips
- [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix wit… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix… Addison Phillips
- [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix wit… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix wit… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix… Randy Presuhn
- [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix wit… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Registry change of the day: prefix… Randy Presuhn