Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"

"Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com> Sat, 08 December 2007 19:44 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 1J15bO-0001Gw-5E; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:44:42 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J15bN-0001Ea-BE for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:44:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15bN-0001ER-1U for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:44:41 -0500
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J15bM-00047w-IH for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:44:41 -0500
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 <20071208194440.RRPA4022.mta11.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:44:40 -0500
Message-ID: <005f01c839d2$c5f0d7f0$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <000501c83960$e8e514f0$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81> <20071208064801.GC22311@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20712080938t36e47861gfccdd65f4d2b56cf@mail.gmail.com> <002601c839c3$aec71df0$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81> <30b660a20712081044o77be0eacy50de71b76f55a748@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)"
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:44:39 -0800
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 V6.00.2900.3198
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Cc:
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

Mark Davis wrote:

> Now before someone says it, I realize that the names in a UI don't 
> have to be the same as the names in the registry. But the closer we 
> get them to being understandable by mortals, the more likely it is 
> that we will have non-confusing names show up in UIs. We might even 
> leave the above in the registry, but have a note in 4646bis about the 
> names. So I think it's worth our taking at least a little bit of time 
> to discuss this.
>
> The best I could think of off-hand was something like.
> ...
> Swahili (general)
> Swahili
> ...

I assume you're talking about what you would do in a UI, not what the 
Registry should have.  We had a big squabble about keeping the ISO names 
intact.  In fact, at one point I was changing the parenthetical comments 
to "(general)" and "(specific)", or leaving out one or the other, but it 
was argued that people couldn't tie the Registry's Description fields 
back to the ISO standard.

So now the only thing I'm concerned about is whether to keep both the 
639-2 name, without the parenthetical comment, *and* the 639-3 name, 
which has it, or whether one of the two names can be jettisoned.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru