Subject: [Ltru] Re: FYI: CLDR update

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:06:38 -0800

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

>        {"language", "root", "Description", "Root", "CLDR", "True"},
> ...
> The code for root is just a special case for CLDR, and I don't see a
> good alternative in 3066bis. Possibly we could have used "und", but by
> now it is pretty baked.

I confess I'm not familiar enough with CLDR to know what the purpose of 
"root" is, or how it relates to "undetermined language."  I assume 
you've made the right choice here.  It would be nice to have some way of 
knowing whether "root" will eventually be an assigned ISO 639-6 alpha-4 
code element.

>        {"variant", "POLYTONI", "Description", "Polytonic Greek",
> "CLDR", "True"},
> ...
> POLYTONI we probably want to recast as a private use script code, eg.
> Qaap. That way inheritance will work better.

Is polytonic Greek considered a separate script from monotonic Greek 
more than it is considered a variant?  So far variants have been 
employed for orthographic reforms and language dialects.  I realize many 
members of this list (not to say Mark in particular) do not care for 
variants in general.

>        {"variant", "REVISED", "Description", "Revised Orthography",
> "CLDR", "True"},
> ...
> REVISED is only used for Armenian (hy-AM-REVISED)
> (cf http://dev.icu-project.org/cgi-bin/locale-bugs/confirm?id=938)

This seems to me to be an excellent use of a variant subtag.  I wonder 
if "revised" is a bit too generic; the variant subtags "1901" and "1996" 
were chosen after discussions on ietf-languages revealed that "trad" 
(for "traditional") was considered too generic.

> Question: according to
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hye there is no code
> for Eastern vs Western Armenian. Will ISO be adding this as part of
> the next revision? It appears that there are distinct differences in
> orthography that we need to account for, at least according to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_language

If the only demonstrable differences are in orthography, would ISO 
really consider splitting the two?  Is that within the scope of 639-2? 
What about 639-3?

>        {"variant", "SAAHO", "Description", "Dialect", "CLDR",
> "True"},
> ...
> SAAHO is only used in ar-ER-SAAHO in CLDR
> (http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/main/aa_ER_SAAHO.xml)
> According to SIL, we could be using ssy for that.
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=aar
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ssy
>
> Although not now in the registry, it looks like it will come in with
> the next version of ISO 639, so we could deprecate it at that point.

As a dialect of Afar, this looks suitable for a variant.  The ISO 639-3 
site confirms that "ssy" is planned as the code element for Saho.

>        {"region", "QE", "Description", "European Union", "CLDR",
> "True"},
> ...
> QE is also a special case for CLDR, needed internally for other
> purposes, and is not used in composing language tags.

QE is not a valid private-use region subtag, so seems inappropriate for 
this use.  Valid private-use region subtags are AA, QM through QZ, XA 
through XZ, and ZZ.

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

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:41:57 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:

>> {"region", "QE", "Description", "European Union", "CLDR", "True"},
[...] 
> QE is not a valid private-use region subtag, so seems
> inappropriate for this use.  Valid private-use region subtags
> are AA, QM through QZ, XA through XZ, and ZZ.

In "I've to make up something for EU" mode I'd take EU.  As
long as I don't claim that it's a valid country code it's a
calculated risk:  Will they ever remove their "exceptional
reservation" _and_ give EU to something that's seriously
different from the pseudo-ccTLD EU ?

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:22:23 -0800

Thanks for your comments, and Frank's.

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I confess I'm not familiar enough with CLDR to know what the purpose 
> of "root" is, or how it relates to "undetermined language."  I assume 
> you've made the right choice here.  It would be nice to have some way 
> of knowing whether "root" will eventually be an assigned ISO 639-6 
> alpha-4 code element.

root has a special meaning, which is the fallback for data that is 
common to all languages. It would be hard to change it, so we hope it 
just never collides with a valid language subtag.

> employed for orthographic reforms and language dialects.  I realize 
> many members of this list (not to say Mark in particular) do not care 
> for variants in general.

Inheritance tends to work better if major differences in orthography 
that cross country boundaries are in the script field. But there is no 
decision on that.

> if "revised" is a bit too generic; the variant subtags "1901" and 
> "1996" were chosen after discussions on ietf-languages revealed that 
> "trad" (for "traditional") was considered too generic.

> really consider splitting the two?  Is that within the scope of 639-2? 

Yes, REVISED is pretty generic, and should really be replaced.

> As a dialect of Afar, this looks suitable for a variant.  The ISO 
> 639-3 site confirms that "ssy" is planned as the code element for Saho.

Yes, and once that is the case we can deprecate SAAHO and use ssy.

> QE is not a valid private-use region subtag, so seems inappropriate 
> for this use.  Valid private-use region subtags are AA, QM through QZ, 
> XA through XZ, and ZZ.

Luckily QE is not yet in a released version -- just introduced very 
recently. So we can correct that to be a better code. Perhaps XE

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 13:38:54 -0500

> just never collides with a valid language subtag.

That sounds like a hybrid between "und" and "i-default".  Still, "root"
is not possible as an RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis tag, so it's safe enough
in this limited application.

> that cross country boundaries are in the script field. But there is no 

I continue to think that poly/mono is best treated as a script-variant
distinction.  These distinctions aren't treated specially by 3066bis;
perhaps they should be looked at more closely on the next round.

> >really consider splitting the two?  Is that within the scope of 639-2? 

I understand the article (which is not exactly a proper linguistic description)
to mean that certain phonemic distinctions have been lost in Western
Armenian dialects, so that some words in the common orthography have become
homophonous.  That sounds like the very opposite of an orthographic distinction.

Since SIL is the registrar for 639-3, it is unlikely in the extreme that
639-3 will make a distinction that the Ethnologue does not (or vice versa).

> recently. So we can correct that to be a better code. Perhaps XE

Perhaps, or maybe using EU is the Right Thing after all.  It's surely
not going to be used for any country in even the remote future.

-- 
Go, and never darken my towels again!           John Cowan
        --Rufus T. Firefly                      www.ccil.org/~cowan