Subject: [Ltru] Last registry for now

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 22:42:57 -0700

When I first mocked up a sample of the proposed Language Subtag Registry
back in July 2004, based on the description in
draft-phillips-langtags-04, my intent was to show list members on
ietf-languages what the registry would look like, and how it would be
updated to reflect any changes in the core ISO standards or IETF
registrations.  I hoped it would encourage any necessary questions about
the format of the registry, the update process, and the subtag mechanism
itself.  To a great extent, this has been successful.

Unfortunately, it seems that to an even greater extent, the continual
updating of the sample registry has become a distraction from the
overall process of evaluating the draft, and moving it toward the Last
Call that is scheduled for this month.  This has become especially true
in regard to discussions that focus on the exact contents of the
registry and on decisions to exclude (or include) certain "useless" or
"stupid" subtags, usually region subtags.

It seems that by updating the contents of the registry so frequently -- 
about 30 times since July -- I have been a major contributor to this
distraction.

Additionally, my role in trying to maintain a draft registry has become
badly misunderstood.  I am not some kind of Registry Czar who imposes
his personal will on which subtags "should" and "should not" be valid.
I make only those changes that seem to have consensus within the group
or seem uncontroversial.  I have never tried to effect changes in the
draft by going through the "back door" of the registry.  Unfortunately,
some recent posts to the effect that "maybe Doug can do this or that"
imply that the draft is (or should be) controlled by the registry, not
the other way around.  This is not good.

It would be perfectly possible for WG members to visualize how the
"live" registry will look and behave, and use that information to
evaluate the draft, without constant and distracting changes in the
content of the sample registry.

Section 3.7 of draft-01 explains how the initial registry will be
constructed from the core ISO standards and the existing Language Tag
Registry, and how it will be updated.  In particular, it states that the
initial registry will be submitted for a Last Call of its own.  That is
the time when group members should focus on fine-tuning the registry,
not now.

Consequently, I have uploaded a new sample registry, dated 2005-04-30,
to the usual URL:

http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/lstreg.txt

Barring any further architectural changes to the registry, this will be
the LAST registry update I will make until the draft passes Last Call.
"Architectural changes" would include things like new fields, changes in
field names, or a change in the overall format of the registry.  To
demonstrate this, the current version makes *only* the following changes
over the previous version, dated 2005-04-19:

1.  The "%%" lines at the start and end of the file are dropped.

2.  Underscores in field names are replaced by hyphens.  For example,
"File_Date" is changed to "File-Date".

3.  Descriptions are copied exactly from the ISO standards, including
any non-Latin-1 characters.

Note that none of the content changes we have been discussing lately
(e.g. tweaks to Suppress-Script entries and UN macrogeographical codes)
are incorporated.  This is intentional, because including these changes
would only start another round of registry fine-tuning threads and would
push the draft document even farther away from completion.  If any list
members feel (as I do) that some or all of these content changes should
be incorporated in the initial registry, the time to discuss this is
after the draft is approved, during the registry Last Call.

In the meantime, let's focus on getting any remaining issues resolved in
draft-01, and moving it toward Last Call, because if that doesn't
happen, the registry won't matter one bit.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:43:02 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> the continual updating of the sample registry has become a
> distraction from the overall process of evaluating the draft

Without your draft registry I wouldn't understand one word in
the registry draft (excl. its ABNF), the draft registry is no
distraction, quite the contrary, it's the essence.

> decisions to exclude (or include) certain "useless" or

200 reflects a procedural issue in the registry draft, and 003
might be a hint that UN M49 is not as consistent as we hoped.

Whether it's "stupid" or "useless" is beside the point, but we
cannot get rid of it as soon as it's in.  The registry draft
creates a stable registry.  Subtags are never deleted.  We are
damned to get it right.  I've no problem with this principle,
but it has some disadvantages, and 003 helped me to see this.

Of course it's more relevant for registered languages and for
registered variants, John proposed some generic variants like
-northern on the languages list.

Playing with your draft registry allows me to test such ideas,
and maybe the registry draft should say that generic variants
are a bad idea.  If that's the case, I'm not at all sure.

> I make only those changes that seem to have consensus within
> the group or seem uncontroversial.

Yes, and if some results are strange it's not your fault, but
a problem in the registry draft or in the source standards.

> the time when group members should focus on fine-tuning the
> registry, not now.

IBTD.  Trying to do something with your draft registry is the
best way to find problems in the registry draft.  Four of my
five "last points" are a direct consequence of simply trying
to parse lstreg.txt 2005-04-30.  These five "last points" are
certainly not about the two obscure region codes 003 and 200.

> the current version makes *only* the following changes over
> the previous version, dated 2005-04-19:
[...]
4. Added date of deprecation to "jw". (2001-08-13)

I've checked all xrefs and a diff.  The "forever stable" idea
means _one_ chance to get it right for subtag values.  Other
fields can be fixed, missing subtags can be added, but there's
no clean way to get rid of unwanted subtags.  Even if they are
deprecated they'll block the corresponding field value forever.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:02:44 +0100

Scríobh Doug Ewell:
> ...
> "File_Date" is changed to "File-Date"...

Was there some irresistible reason for that last-minute framework
change, Doug? 

I ask because underscores are linguistically neutral, hyphens not so,
and you just wouldn't want to know what that change would do to some
languages (if ever your registry were to be localized for use on
non-English servers).

Best,
mg

-- 

Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an 
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:09:39 +0100

And I'd describe Doug's draft registry as his lighting of a candle where
others might have only cursed the dark.
Keep up the good work, 
mg 

Scríobh Frank Ellermann:
> distraction, quite the contrary, it's the essence...

--