Subject: [Ltru] Re: Phonetic transcriptions: clearing the decks

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:12:00 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> We now have three choices:
>
> 1) Use variant subtags and leave specific registration issues up to 
> ietf-languages (in some cases, stacked variant subtags may be useful).
>
> 2) Do an end-run around ISO 15924 by allowing a registration procedure 
> for script subtags using some syntax other than 4ALPHA, perhaps 1ALPHA 
> + 3alphanum.
>
> 3) Do nothing.

4) Draft an RFC in accordance with RFC 4646, section 3.7, to establish a 
registering authority for extension subtags that would indicate various 
types of phonetic and/or phonemic transcription and/or transliteration 
standards, conventions, and schemes.  Suggest a singleton such as "p-" 
for "phonetic" or "t-" for "transcription."

The RFC would contain all the rules necessary for dealing with the 
variety of systems in use, and could incorporate multiple levels of 
sub-subtags if desired, similar to "stacked variants."

Consumers of language tags that would find this type of information 
useful, such as the implementations Peter has been describing, would be 
expected to examine language tags for the "p-" or "t-" extensions, and 
not discard extensions indiscriminately.

Hopefully this proposal is a bit more useful and specific than just 
saying "use extensions."  :-)

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:23:16 +0900

+1 to this proposal, since it would provide a clear point of reference
(the "to be drafted" RFC) for whose who are interest in the values used
as extension subtags, but *independently* of language tags, e.g. as part
of a different field (I had brought this use case a while ago, giving an
example from SSML).

Felix

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:04:36 +0100

> of a different field (I had brought this use case a while ago, giving an

Far better than the "stacked variant subtags" approach for this purpose.

After the p- or t- or whatever you pick the extansions can have any form
you like, one or more levels of 2..8 letters and digits, separated by a
hyphen-minus.   I looked into the SSML spec. only shortly, IIRC they use
x-anything for anything that's not IPA, the "x-" part wouldn't fly with
an extension registry for 4646 tags.

But you can have a registered anything, and say that it would be used as
x-anything in SSML, or as ...-p-anything in a language tag.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:22:33 -0500

> Far better than the "stacked variant subtags" approach for this purpose.

Why?  I never objected to extensions, but I have yet to see convincing
use cases for them; they need to be about something related to, yet
orthogonal with, ordinary language tags.  Orthography is a mainstream
language-tag concern.

-- 
Evolutionary psychology is the theory           John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs,             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money.  [email-masked]
        --Susan McCarthy (adapted)

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:45:29 +0100

John Cowan wrote:
 
> Why?

Felix could reuse "extension subtags" as is for SSML, without first
filtering out unrelated cruft (from his POV) like "1901" or "boont".

The proposal to use fonXXXXX variants is a kludge, at best it could
be a convention.  An extension registry is something real, it has
its own RfC, a maintenance procedure, it can get its own list for
this purpose, it could be (in practice) managed by the SSML folks.

Adding more work to the LSR list is no plan, "we" are unable to
do the most simple tasks like decide about JPAN in time, or fill
out other missing Suppress-Scripts.

Frank

---

From: Felix Sasaki <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:50:44 +0900

>>> Far better than the "stacked variant subtags" approach for this purpose.

I was on travel and did not participate in this thread for a day. But
thank you for stating my position.

Felix