RE: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field
"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Wed, 04 October 2006 16:50 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GV9wv-0006pk-FH; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:50:25 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GV9wu-0006pf-36 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:50:24 -0400
Received: from mail2.sharplabs.com ([216.65.151.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GV9wr-0006hk-HO for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:50:24 -0400
Received: from admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com (admsrvnt02 [172.29.225.253]) by mail2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6291E134B; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <T6BKZ7K1>; Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:50:18 -0700
Message-ID: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EF28@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com>
From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
To: 'John Cowan' <cowan@ccil.org>, ltru@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:50:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 36c793b20164cfe75332aa66ddb21196
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
+1 While I agree with Mark that this won't help much with reducing the size of the "pick list", the Language Subtag Registry is intended to be a _free-standing_ and comprehensive source of language tag elements and the distinction of 'collection' seems important. Despite the FDIS usage of the thoroughly opaque term 'Language-Type', I'd suggest that this field (if added) be called 'Language-Status' (as John speculated below). Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:42 AM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field > > > A proposal: > > The 4646bis registry should capture the language type information from > ISO 639-3. Each language, including macrolanguages, is labeled in -3 > as either living, extinct, ancient, historic, or constructed. These > terms are defined precisely at http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/types.asp . > Though informative rather than normative, this is very useful to help > shrink the large number of languages to a more manageable size. > > The current draft of 639-3 contains 6989 living languages, 417 > extinct languages, 114 ancient languages, 53 historic languages, > and 24 constructed languages. The codes 'mul', 'und', and 'zxx' are > special cases. > > The registry should also capture the individual language vs. language > collection information from ISO 639-2. If a code element appears in > -2 but not in -3, it is a language collection; there are 68 such code > elements. Now that we have 639-3 code elements for essentially every > language on the planet, language-collection subtags are > extremely vague > and provide little guidance to the recipient. > > (I'm not really happy with the vagueness of "Language-Type", and would > prefer "Language-Status", but it's the term used in the FDIS.) > > > I propose the following language for 4646bis section 3.1.2: > > o Language-Type > o Language-Type's field-body contains one of the values > 'collection', 'extinct', 'ancient', 'historic', > 'constructed', > or 'special'. This field MUST NOT appear except in records > of type 'language'. > > > And here's a draft of the new section 3.1.3.8: > > 3.1.3.8. Language-Type field > > The field 'Language-Type' MUST only appear in records whose > 'Type' field-body is 'language'. This field MUST NOT appear > more than once in a record. Most of the language records in > the registry represent individual living languages. > This field > indicates those which are not. > > The value 'collection' indicates a language > collection appearing > in ISO 639-2 but not ISO 639-3. The values > 'extinct', 'ancient', > 'historic', and 'constructed' indicate languages which are so > designated in ISO 639-3; precise definitions of these > terms can > be found in that standard. The value 'special' is > used for the > three subtags 'mul', 'und', and 'zxx', which do not actually > designate languages at all. > > > Finally, here's a rule for section 4.1: > > 8. Language subtags with a 'Language-Type' field of > 'collection' > do not represent specific languages, and SHOULD NOT be used > unless more specific information is unavailable. > > Appropriate adjustments would be needed to 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 as well. > We should be able to set this field if and when we ever register > a language subtag directly, and change it when 639-3 changes. > > -- > John Cowan > cowan@ccil.org > I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 10/3/2006 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" fie… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… McDonald, Ira
- RE: [Ltru] Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Doug Ewell
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Kent Karlsson
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Addison Phillips
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Frank Ellermann
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Mark Davis
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Marion Gunn
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… McDonald, Ira
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:"… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Ty… Marion Gunn
- [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: include n… Frank Ellermann
- RE: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: inclu… Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: inclu… Addison Phillips
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: inclu… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? (was: Proposal: inclu… Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Addison Phillips
- [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Is 639-3 bogus ? Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Is 639-3 bogus ? Peter Constable