Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in registry entries

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:32:23 -0700

Hi -

 This thread started with message
 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01321.html

 The two key components of this problem are:
(1) whether to limit the repertoire that can be used
     (a) to basic latin
     (b) latin-1

 (2) whether to "correct" data brought over from ISO, such as
 the use of an incorrect character reference for glottal stop.

I don't see a clear consensus on this item yet.  Now that we've had
some "think time", would someone care to make a proposal?

Randy, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:47:26 -0700

I propose:

1. That we not limit the repertoire.
2. The data from ISO is a source. The purpose is identification, so
additions, clarifications or corrections are possible.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 23:32
Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in
registryentries

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 11:26:55 -0400

> 1. That we not limit the repertoire.

+1

> additions, clarifications or corrections are possible.

I'd rather solve this problem by pushing on the upstream site.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule."  Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory."  Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof."  But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:17:55 +0100

> I'd rather solve this problem by pushing on the upstream site.

My command of English is excellent, but I do not understand the above
expression at all. Would somebody care to explain it, or is it not
relevant (better ignored)? If so, there is no need to reply.
mg 

-- 

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:24:18 -0400

> relevant (better ignored)? If so, there is no need to reply.

That is to say: if we think an ISO or UN standard has used the wrong
Unicode character (or some such minor problem) in an on-line document,
we should urge them to change the document themselves rather than
introducing a correction into our copy of it.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic
realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers,
philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with
whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:24:15 -0700

> I'd rather solve this problem by pushing on the upstream site.

I would too, but the process should allow for corrections / clarifications.
What we can do is add to the text a recommend that all corrections /
clarifications be communicated to the relevant source authority.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 08:26
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #934] repertoire for descriptions in
registryentries

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:25:38 +0100

Thank you. And what is your mechanism for doing so (for conveying that
opinion to ISO and/or UN)?
mg

--

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 14:03:33 -0400

> opinion to ISO and/or UN)?

The contact details of the ISO 639 and 15924 Registration Authorities,
the ISO 3166 Maintenance Authority, and the UN Statistics Division are
readily available on the Web.  These are the agencies responsible for
maintaining the content on which the registry draws.

-- 
Andrew Watt on Microsoft:                       John Cowan
Never in the field of human  computing          [email-masked]
has so much been paid by so many                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to so few! (pace Winston Churchill)             http://www.reutershealth.com

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:44:01 +0100

> introducing a correction into our copy of it.

Now, let's try that again, shall we? 

What is the mechanism you actually use/have actually used to deal with
the problem you described in your original msg (copied again above)
John? 

That is to say, _which_ ISO or UN standards do you have in mind,
precisely, in writing the above? 

A waste of time your posting here (as you have done below) info most of
us already have.:-)
mg

--

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:25:05 +0200

Dear Marion,
I can only comment on ISO 3166 and UN.

- for ISO 3166 you should escalate the problem in the proper way: ask the 
IANA. They have been made a member of the ISO 3166 committee to that end 
through ICANN (cf. IETF/ICANN/IANA MoU). The problem is that ICANN has not 
yet designated a person to represent it. This is a point I made among 
ccTLDs as ccTLDs are the first concerned by the issue. We have a possible 
excellent candidate which would get the support of the whole community for 
her dedication to this kind of issues.

- for UN, this kind of matter has currently the whole attention of the WSIS 
WGIG. If there is a policy decided by this WG, it would be advisable to 
send a mail to its secretary, Mr. Kummer and ask that problem to be part of 
the WGIG propositions which must rule the relations between ITU and UN and 
the Information Society we (IETF) are part of. You may also send a mail to 
Avri, she is part of the WGIG, or to the IETF Chair who might help.

jfc

PS. IRT dash and underscore, I agree with you. The problem is to make the 
writing consistent with others. Dash is also minus. We may very well have 
to operate list operations on charsets and tag content, now or in the 
future. Dash is confusing. But my point is obvsiously not for the case at 
hand where they just want to address a application related problem. It is 
more to give general guidelines to the authors of protocol/applications 
oriented RFC when dealing with langtags and charsets.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 05:43:28 +0200

Marion Gunn wrote:

> Would somebody care to explain it

If ISO broke it let ISO fix it, dito UN.

I'd rather not burden the tag reviewer with this job,
and not add text about it to the draft.  If text is
added a "MAY" authorizing the tag reviewer is enough.

We already have a "SHALL petition the UN" in the text,
maybe it's only me, but IMNSHO that's ridiclous.  Bye.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:55:25 -0700

I don't think I made my position clear. Yes, fine we can petition the source
standard to change. But we should also have the *ability* to make a
necessary change without waiting for the source standard. I'm sure the
process and registrar will discourage pointless changes.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 20:43
Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #934] repertoire for
descriptionsinregistryentries