Subject: RE: [Ltru] STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages'toBCP)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:33:22 -0700

> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole idea of the
> primary
> language sub tag is that you use the shortest available ISO 639 code.

Use the shortest equivalent, yes.

> My
> perception of its possible use within this particular RFC is that if
there
> is a requirement for a level of granularity lower than language use
ISO
> 639-6; you can design the RFC to stop at any level within the
hierarchy.

If I understand what you mean, that would amount to requiring that a
lone alpha-4 be used in preference to a sequence like en-US or az-Cyrl
or de-1996 etc. It would be possible to design the RFC this way, but it
is far from clear that that is what we should do. 

> However, that surely does not stop you from using any of the other
> qualifying tags in the ABNF e.g. ISO 3166 or 15924 if you need them.

But that raises questions like determining when they are needed, when
they would be redundant, and whether there are implications of using
them redundantly, or in a contradictory manner, as in my hypothetical
examples abcd-KZ, abcd-TJ, etc.

> I
> would not envisage this RFC using an alpha-4 representation for
> Indo-European.

I'd be inclined to agree. But it raises the issue of needing to
determine which of its 20K+ initial entries and which future additions
should not be used by the RFC.

> With regard to your examples, I can't really see a problem other than
you
> would never get the following scenario as in your presentation:
> 
> > abcd-2010
> > abcd-1996

But the syntax as it stands now would certainly allow it. Thus, the
issue is raised whether we would need to revise the syntax to prohibit
such combinations.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:53:03 +0100

> should not be used by the RFC.

Once the course of action is determined by the LTRU (e.g. to accept
everything under the level of language), it would be a simple task to
extract the alpha-4s to be used (using the level code)

> issue is raised whether we would need to revise the syntax to prohibit

I don't think so... the correct alpha-4 representation would be abce.  So
long as users access the up to date data table they could only come up with
abcd-1996 or abce-2010. 

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Peter Constable
> Sent: 28 August 2005 21:33
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying
> Languages'toBCP)
>