Subject: [Ltru] Re: LTRU progress and ISO 639-6

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:18:35 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> 1) No language tags for language collections except for the
>   grandfathered 639-2 ones.

No, I agree with Randy: we cannot guarantee that no RFC 4646bis/ter 
application will ever have a use for collection subtags.  It's not all 
Web pages and browser preferences.  When we forbid "nv-DK" and "nv-Yiii" 
we can talk about forbidding the collections.

> 2) All existing language tags unchanged.

No problem there.

> 3) 639-3 tags which represent a finer granularity than we have
>   today are registered as variant subtags of the form '6xxxx'
>   with an appropriate prefix.
>
> Comments?

1)  Are we planning to un-reserve the 4-letter primary language subtags, 
since it's obvious we aren't going to use them for the intended purpose? 
(Not that there will ever be any non-639-based langauge subtags anyway.)

2)  Is the extension mechanism really so distasteful that we would 
rather register thousands of "6xxxx" variants instead?

--
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: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:34:28 -0800

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> One point with the Suppress-Scripts is that we must get
> it right a.s.a.p.  4646bis should be put on hold until
> the 4646 registry without 639-3 is complete.

Once again I must disagree in the strongest terms with Frank on this 
topic.  Suppress-Script is NOT normative and the Registry is NOT 
expected to ever contain a complete and uncontroversial set of 
Suppress-Script entries -- not even for the 489 current language 
subtags.

No tag is made invalid by the addition of a script subtag, even one that 
is supposed to be Suppressed.  Suppress-Script is only a suggestion, 
meant to simplify life for matching engines that have not been upgraded 
to use RFC 4647 techniques.  No mechanism should be put in place in 
4646bis or beyond that makes S-S anything more than a suggestion.

One of the main reasons I opposed Suppress-Script (or anything like it) 
in the first place was that somebody might expect this group, or 
ietf-languages, to research script usage for hundreds or thousands of 
languages.  The benefit simply does not justify the effort and 
inevitable controversy.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 01:44:45 -0500

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> No, I agree with Randy: we cannot guarantee that no RFC 
> 4646bis/ter application will ever have a use for collection 
> subtags.  It's not all Web pages and browser preferences.  When we 
> forbid "nv-DK" and "nv-Yiii" we can talk about forbidding the 
> collections.

I now accept this.

> 1)  Are we planning to un-reserve the 4-letter primary language 
> subtags, since it's obvious we aren't going to use them for the 
> intended purpose? 

No, we'll need them for the supralanguage tags like "inde" (Indo-
European languages).

> rather register thousands of "6xxxx" variants instead?

This is what variants are for: language varieties that don't amount
to separate languages.  Rather than waiting for people to register
them as needed, we are being handed a whole bunch on a platter.
I say, let's grab 'em.

-- 
A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about,       John Cowan
like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though         [email-masked]
I stopped when I thought I heard something at           http://ccil.org/~cowan
the far side of the room falling over in rhythm
with my feet.  -- Joseph Zitt

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:08:02 +0100

> since it's obvious we aren't going to use them for the intended purpose?

No, the 4646ter folks should at least in theory be free to replace the
current structured tags by simple 639-6 alpha4 codes *IFF* that's better.
Very unlikely, but I want them to be free to consider it.  We have no
compelling reasons to use these codes for something else.  Actually we've
no reason at all to use them for something else before 639-6 is published.

> rather register thousands of "6xxxx" variants instead?

No, 6xxxx variants are a dubious idea.  Variants are a fallback mechanism
for various special cases bound to specific prefixes, discussed and then
registered by the review list individually.  Extensions are for generally
interesting properties, with their own RFCs and maintenance procedures.

We might need a rule that variants can be deprecated in favour of a later
established extension.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:40:08 -0500

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> registered by the review list individually.

Section 2.2.5 says:

   Variant subtags are used to indicate additional, well-recognized
   variations that define a language or its dialects that are not
   covered by other available subtags.

I take "dialects" to include sociolects and orthographic variants.

> Extensions are for generally

Yes; they are for extensions *to* language tags, providing
non-language-tag-like information, which variant subtags are not.

-- 
Mos Eisley spaceport.  You will never           John Cowan
see a more wretched hive of scum and            [email-masked]
villainy -- unless you watch the                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Jerry Springer Show.   --georgettesworld.com