Subject: RE: Last Call on Language Tags (RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:29:31 -0800

> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]

> 2. I never objected the scripting-ID. I objected that it was not given
the
> same importance as language and country codes. I plead (and act) for
25
> years for the support of authoritative distinctions among users
contexts.
> But I am not paid by a big employer.

I don't have time to offer many comments. Let me say for the benefit of
people that don't know much about me that up to a year ago I was not
paid by a big employer, but was a volunteer working for a non-profit
organization, SIL International, and it was in *that* context that I
became involved in the development of ISO 639 (including being SIL
liaison to the ISO 639-RA/JAC, a member of the US TAG for TC 37, and
project editor for ISO 639-3), a contributor to the development of RFC
3066 and a regular participant in the activity of the IETF-languages
list.

> There is NO consensus in the community and huge technical,
> societal, economical and political concerns. Because one does not
> understand what the Draft wants to achieve, for who and how. The main
> request is to clarify. There are no real objections (except to the
paucity
> of the proposition) but concerns.

I haven't seen many requests for clarification. If that is people are
wanting, then I think the authors, or others, can provide that, if it's
made clear at what points clarification is needed.

> > > It would be very helpful, to me at least, if you or he could
> > > identify the specific context in which such tags would be used
> > > and are required.  The examples should ideally be of
> > > IETF-standard software, not proprietary products.
> 
> You respond none. Just an application level problem.

I was asked to respond with examples that pertain to IETF-standard
software, so that's what I did.

> >I've used Chinese as one example, but there are many other cases,
some
> >familiar to many and some less well known....

> Full agreement. But this is to be done through an open and inclusive
> semantic, not on an exclusive first come first serve registration
basis.

Which is why one of the aims of the proposed draft is to fully
incorporate script IDs as sanctioned sub-tags rather than leaving
individual parties to make ad hoc registrations for such distinctions.

> Why do you want there would be an exclusive _unique_ matching
algorithm?

I have never said I want that.

> We had a long talk at the end of the August Paris meeting at AUF over
ISO
> 639-2 and the need to aggregate language ID, scripting ID, usage
> description, authoritative sources and also country codes and on the
> complexity to take into account "sub-code" and private codes and to
add
> accidental or new descriptors in order to document venacular ways of
> speaking, thinking, talking. Obviously it was a private discussion
with a
> few people sharing the same ideas ... May be you were there (we were
the
> last to leave the room and the building).

I don't know. I don't recall this discussion, and I can't put a face to
your name. I know I was not last to leave the room. Obviously I have
ideas on those issues.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf