Subject: [Ltru] Submission: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:38:10 -0800

I've just submitted draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01 to 
[email-masked].

Because this draft is over 802,000 bytes and 916 pages long -- longer 
than the previous draft because of the inclusion of about 1,400 
inverted/uninverted pairs -- I was once again disinclined to post it to 
the mailing list.  Instead, I've attached a reduced version that 
includes all of the prose, but omits most of the proposed new Registry 
contents.  You can view or download the complete draft at one of the 
following locations:

http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.html
    (739,857 bytes)
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.html.zip
    (97,302 bytes)
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.txt
    (857,083 bytes)
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01.txt.zip
    (101,713 bytes)

Of course, once the draft is officially posted to the IETF site, you can 
get it there as well.

--
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

-----8<-----cut here-----8<-----cut here-----8<-----cut here-----8<-----

Network Working Group                                      D. Ewell, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                Consultant
Intended status: Informational                          January 14, 2007
Expires: July 18, 2007

                 Update to the Language Subtag Registry
                       draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

Abstract

   This memo defines the procedure used to update the IANA Language
   Subtag Registry in conjunction with the publication of RFC 4646bis
   [RFC EDITOR NOTE: replace with actual RFC number], for use in forming
   tags for the identification of languages.  As an Internet-Draft, it
   also contained a complete replacement of the contents of the Registry
   to be used by IANA in updating it.  To prevent confusion, this
   material was removed before publication.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Updating the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Starting Point  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  New Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Modified Subtags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Grandfathered and Redundant Tags  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Additional Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Updated Registry Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 909
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910
   6.  Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . 916

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

1.  Introduction

   [RFC4646] provided for a Language Subtag Registry and described its
   format.  The initial contents of the Registry and rules for
   determining them were specified in [RFC4645].

   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02] expands on [RFC4646] by adding support
   for approximately 7,200 primary and extended language subtags based
   on [ISO639-3] alpha-3 code elements.  This memo describes the process
   of updating the Registry to include these additional subtags, and to
   make secondary changes to the Registry that result from adding the
   new subtags.

   In its initial phase as an Internet-Draft, this memo also contained a
   complete replacement of the contents of the Language Subtag Registry
   to be used by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in
   updating it.  This content was deleted from this memo prior to
   publication as an RFC.

   The format of the Language Subtag Registry, and the definition and
   intended purpose of each of the fields, are described in
   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02].

   The Registry is expected to change over time, as new subtags are
   registered and existing subtags are modified or deprecated.  The
   process of updating the Registry is described in Section 3 of
   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02].  In its Internet-Draft phase, this memo
   did not define the permanent contents of the Registry and should not
   be represented as doing so.

   Many of the subtags defined in the Language Subtag Registry are based
   on code elements defined in [ISO639-1], [ISO639-2], [ISO639-3],
   [ISO3166-1], [ISO15924], and [UN_M.49].  The Registry is not a mirror
   of the code lists defined by these standards and should not be used
   as one.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

2.  Updating the Registry

   This section describes the process for determining the updated
   contents of the Language Subtag Registry.

2.1.  Starting Point

   The version of the Language Subtag Registry that was current at the
   time of IESG approval of this memo served as the starting point for
   this update.  The process of creating that version was described in
   [RFC4645].

   The source data for [ISO639-3] used for this update consisted of
   three files, available from the official site of the ISO 639-3
   Registration Authority.  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: these files are expected
   to be updated before approval of this memo.]

   o  [iso-fdis-639-3_20061114] is a list of all language code elements
      in [ISO639-3], including the alpha-3 code element and reference
      name for each code element.  For example, the entry for the Dari
      language contained the code element "prs" and the name "Dari"
      (among other information).

   o  [iso-fdis-639-3_Name_Index_20061114] is a list containing all
      names associated with each language according to [ISO639-3],
      including both inverted and uninverted forms where appropriate.  A
      code element may have more than one entry in this file; the
      reference name and its inverted form are usually, but not always,
      given in the first entry.  For example, this file contained an
      entry for the code element "prs" with the name "Dari" (twice) and
      another entry with the names "Eastern Farsi" and "Farsi, Eastern".

   o  [iso-fdis-639-3-macrolanguages_20061114] is a list of all alpha-3
      code elements for languages that are encompassed by a
      macrolanguage in [ISO639-3], together with the alpha-3 code
      element for the macrolanguage.  For example, a line containing the
      code elements "fas" and "prs" indicated that the macrolanguage
      "Persian" encompasses the individual language "Dari".  (Note that
      these alpha-3 code elements may not have corresponded directly to
      subtags in the Registry, which uses 2-letter subtags derived from
      [ISO639-1] when possible.)

   The value of the File-Date field and of the Added date for each new
   subtag record are set to a date near the date of IESG approval of
   this memo.  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: these dates would be updated during
   AUTH48.]

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

2.2.  New Subtags

   For each language in [ISO639-3] that was not already represented by a
   primary language subtag in the Language Subtag Registry, a new subtag
   was added to the Registry, using the [ISO639-3] code element as the
   value for the Subtag field and each of the [ISO639-3] names as a
   separate Description field.  The [ISO639-3] reference name was
   represented by the first Description field.  The following rules were
   used to determine whether to add a primary or extended language
   subtag:

   o  If the language was encompassed by a macrolanguage, as determined
      by [iso-fdis-639-3-macrolanguages_20061114], an extended language
      subtag was added, with the primary language subtag of the
      macrolanguage as the value for the Prefix field.

   o  If the name of the language included the words "Sign Language", an
      extended language subtag was added, with the string "sgn" as the
      value for the Prefix field.  This is a special case that treats
      the existing primary language subtag for "Sign Languages" as if it
      were a macrolanguage encompassing all sign languages.  (Note that
      "sgn" is defined as a "collection code" by [ISO639-3] and hence is
      not included in that standard.)

   o  Otherwise, a primary language subtag was added.

   All subtags were added to the Registry maintaining alphabetical order
   within each type of tag: all 2-letter "language" subtags first, then
   all 3-letter "language" subtags, and finally all all "extlang"
   subtags.  Some existing records were moved to ensure this order.

2.3.  Modified Subtags

   For each language in [ISO639-3] that was already represented by a
   primary language subtag in the Language Subtag Registry, Description
   fields were added as necessary to reflect all names listed for that
   language (inverted and uninverted) in either
   [iso-fdis-639-3_20061114] or [iso-fdis-639-3_Name_Index_20061114].
   The order of Description fields was adjusted to ensure that the
   reference name from [ISO639-3] was listed first, followed by other
   names from [ISO639-3] in the order presented by that standard,
   followed by any other names already existing in the Registry.  In
   some cases this resulted in a reordering of Description fields for
   existing entries, even when no new values were added.

   No existing Description fields were changed or deleted, with the
   following exceptions:

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

   o  For the primary language subtag "es", the Description "Castilian"
      was replaced by the [ISO639-3] spelling "Castillian".  This was
      presumed to be an unintentional and temporary mismatch between
      [ISO639-2] and [ISO639-3].

   o  For similar reasons, the following spelling changes were made to
      existing Description fields in the Registry to bring them in line
      with the corresponding names in [ISO639-3]:

         "gsw" changed from "Alemannic" to "Alemanic"

         "gwi" changed from "Gwich&#xB4;in" to "Gwich'in"

         "nqo" changed from "N&#x2019;Ko" to "N'Ko"

         "rup" changed from "Macedo-Romanian" to "Macedo Romanian"

   o  The capitalization of the Subtag field for the redundant tag "yi-
      latn" was changed to "yi-Latn" for consistency with the
      capitalization conventions described in Section 2.1 of
      [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02].

2.4.  Grandfathered and Redundant Tags

   As stated in [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02], "grandfathered" and
   "redundant" tags are complete tags in the Language Subtag Registry
   that were registered under [RFC1766] or [RFC3066] and remain valid.
   Grandfathered tags cannot be generated from a valid combination of
   subtags, while "redundant" tags can be.

   Under certain conditions, registration of a subtag under
   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02] may cause a grandfathered tag to be
   reclassified as redundant.  It may also enable the creation of a
   generative tag with the same meaning as a grandfathered or redundant
   tag; in that case, the grandfathered or redundant tag is marked as
   Deprecated, and the generative tag (including the new subtag) becomes
   its Preferred-Value.

   As a result of adding the new subtags in this update, the following
   grandfathered tags became composable and were reclassified as
   redundant:

      zh-cmn

      zh-cmn-Hans

      zh-cmn-Hant

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

      zh-gan

      zh-wuu

      zh-yue

   The following grandfathered tags were deprecated, with the indicated
   generative tag serving as the Preferred-Value:

      i-ami (Preferred-Value: ami)

      i-bnn (Preferred-Value: bnn)

      i-pwn (Preferred-Value: pwn)

      i-tao (Preferred-Value: tao)

      i-tay (Preferred-Value: tay)

      i-tsu (Preferred-Value: tsu)

      sgn-CH-de (Preferred-Value: sgn-sgg)

      zh-hakka (Preferred-Value: zh-hak)

      zh-min (no Preferred-Value; see below)

      zh-min-nan (Preferred-Value: zh-nan)

      zh-xiang (Preferred-Value: zh-hns)

   The tag "zh-min", originally registered under [RFC1766], is a special
   case: it represents a small class of languages, but is not a true
   macrolanguage.  It could not ever become a generative tag since the
   [ISO639-3] code element "min" is assigned to an individual language
   (Minangkabau) that is not related to Chinese ("zh").  Because it is
   not believed to represent a useful linguistic entity for tagging
   purposes, it was deprecated without a Preferred-Value.

   The following redundant sign-language tags were deprecated, with the
   indicated generative tag serving as the Preferred-Value:

      sgn-BR (Preferred-Value: sgn-bzs)

      sgn-CO (Preferred-Value: sgn-csn)

      sgn-DE (Preferred-Value: sgn-gsg)

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

      sgn-DK (Preferred-Value: sgn-dsl)

      sgn-ES (Preferred-Value: sgn-ssp)

      sgn-FR (Preferred-Value: sgn-fsl)

      sgn-GB (Preferred-Value: sgn-bfi)

      sgn-GR (Preferred-Value: sgn-gss)

      sgn-IE (Preferred-Value: sgn-isg)

      sgn-IT (Preferred-Value: sgn-ise)

      sgn-JP (Preferred-Value: sgn-jsl)

      sgn-MX (Preferred-Value: sgn-mfs)

      sgn-NI (Preferred-Value: sgn-ncs)

      sgn-NL (Preferred-Value: sgn-dse)

      sgn-NO (Preferred-Value: sgn-nsl)

      sgn-PT (Preferred-Value: sgn-psr)

      sgn-SE (Preferred-Value: sgn-swl)

      sgn-US (Preferred-Value: sgn-ase)

      sgn-ZA (Preferred-Value: sgn-sfs)

   No change was made to the Description field(s) for any of the
   grandfathered or redundant tags.  For example, the redundant tag
   "sgn-US" continues to carry the Description "American Sign Language".
   The sign language tags registered prior to [RFC4646] remain an
   exception to the general principle that the meaning of a non-
   grandfathered tag can be derived from its component subtags.

   In previous versions of the Registry, grandfathered tags that had
   been deprecated as a result of adding an ISO 639-based language
   subtag included a Comments field, with a value of the form "replaced
   by ISO code xxx", where "xxx" represented the new language subtag.
   These comments duplicated the information contained within the
   Preferred-Value field, and were deleted as part of this update.  No
   changes were made to other Comments fields.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

2.5.  Additional Changes

   For consistency with the handling of alternative names in language
   subtags, Description fields for script subtags taken from [ISO15924]
   that represent alternative names were converted to multiple
   Description fields.  For example, the Description "Han (Hanzi, Kanji,
   Hanja)" was converted to four separate Description fields.  Some
   Description fields for script subtags contained parenthetical
   material that was explanatory, rather than identifying alternative
   names; these fields were not altered.

   The situation does not apply to region subtags taken from [ISO3166-1]
   and [UN_M.49] because those standards do not provide freely available
   alternative names for code elements.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

3.  Updated Registry Contents

   The remainder of this section specified the updated set of records
   for the Language Subtag Registry.  This material was deleted before
   publication of this memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the
   Registry itself.  The IANA Language Subtag Registry can be found at
   <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under "Language Tags".

   [RFC EDITOR NOTE: the remainder of this section is to be deleted upon
   publication.]

   The updated contents of the Language Subtag Registry follow.  This
   data is intended as a complete replacement for the current contents
   of the Registry.  The Registry begins with the line that starts with
   the string "File-Date" and continues to the end of this section.
   Headers, footers, line breaks, and other vertical whitespace
   introduced by the RFC process are not significant.  Leading
   horizontal whitespace relative to the "File-Date" line indicates a
   continued line in the record-jar format, and must not be deleted.

File-Date: 2008-01-01
%%
Type: language
Subtag: aa
Description: Afar
Added: 2005-10-16
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ab
Description: Abkhazian
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Cyrl
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ae
Description: Avestan
Added: 2005-10-16
%%
Type: language
Subtag: af
Description: Afrikaans
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Latn
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ak
Description: Akan
Added: 2005-10-16

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

Description: Cantonese
Added: 1999-12-18

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 908]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

4.  Security Considerations

   For security considerations relevant to the Language Subtag Registry
   and the use of language tags, see [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02].

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 909]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

5.  IANA Considerations

   In its initial phase as an Internet-Draft, this memo contained a
   complete replacement of the contents of the Language Subtag Registry
   to be used by IANA in updating it.  As an RFC, it contains a pointer
   to the Registry, which is maintained by IANA.  The Language Subtag
   Registry can be found at <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under
   "Language Tags".  For details on the procedures for the format and
   ongoing maintenance of this Registry, see
   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02].

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 910]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

6.  Changes

   [Editor's Note: This section is provided for the convenience of
   reviewers and will be removed from the final document.]

   This memo is a new work, not an incremental update.  The procedure
   for populating the original Language Subtag Registry, specified by
   the earlier [RFC4646], is included by reference to [RFC4645].
   Therefore, no changes from [RFC4645] are listed in this section.

   Changes between draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-00 and this version are:

   o  Changed procedure to incorporate data from new "Language Names
      Index" file and to ensure that the [ISO639-3] reference name is
      the first Description field.

   o  Removed some exceptions as a result of improved [ISO639-3] draft
      data.

   o  Removed section dealing with special handling of "(generic)" and
      "(specific)" strings within language names.

   o  Added an explanation of the process of converting a compound
      Description field for a script subtag to multiple Description
      fields.

   o  Removed Comments fields of the form "replaced by ISO code xxx",
      which provided no additional information beyond the Preferred-
      Value field.

   o  Clarified that the included Registry contents are a complete
      replacement for the existing Registry, not a set of deltas.  (J.
      Cowan)

   o  Changed "included within" a macrolanguage to use "encompassed by"
      throughout.  (J. Cowan)

   o  Provided better explanation for deprecation of "zh-min" in
      Section 2.4.  (J. Cowan)

   o  Added Changes and Acknowledgements sections.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 911]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [ISO639-3]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/FDIS
              639-3:2007.  Codes for the representation of names of
              languages -- Part 3: Alpha-3 code for comprehensive
              coverage of languages, first edition", 2007.

   [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02]
              Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", December 2006, <http://www.inter-locale.com/
              ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02.html>.

   [iso-fdis-639-3-macrolanguages_20061114]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/FDIS
              639-3 Macrolanguage Mappings", November 2006, <http://
              www.sil.org/iso639-3/
              iso-fdis-639-3-macrolanguages_20061114.tab>.

   [iso-fdis-639-3_20061114]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/FDIS
              639-3 Code Set", November 2006,
              <http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-fdis-639-3_20061114.tab>.

   [iso-fdis-639-3_Name_Index_20061114]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/FDIS
              639-3 Language Names Index", November 2006, <http://
              www.sil.org/iso639-3/
              iso-fdis-639-3_Name_Index_20061114.tab>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [ISO15924]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
              15924:2004.  Information and documentation -- Codes for
              the representation of names of scripts", January 2004.

   [ISO3166-1]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 3166:
              1988.  Codes for the representation of names of countries,
              3rd edition", August 1988.

   [ISO639-1]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
              1:2002.  Codes for the representation of names of
              languages -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code", 2002.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 912]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

   [ISO639-2]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
              2:1998.  Codes for the representation of names of
              languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition", 1998.

   [RFC1766]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
              Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3066]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
              Languages", RFC 3066, January 2001.

   [RFC4645]  Ewell, D., "Initial Language Subtag Registry", RFC 4645,
              September 2006.

   [RFC4646]  Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September 2006.

   [UN_M.49]  Statistics Division, United Nations, "Standard Country or
              Area Codes for Statistical Use", UN Standard Country or
              Area Codes for Statistical Use, Revision 4 (United Nations
              publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9), June 1999.

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 913]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   This memo is a collaborative work of the Language Tag Registry Update
   (LTRU) Working Group.  All of its members have made significant
   contributions to this memo and to its predecessor, [RFC4645].

   Specific contributions to this memo were made by John Cowan, Mark
   Davis, Martin Duerst, Frank Ellermann, Kent Karlsson, and Addison
   Phillips.

   This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described in
   [RFC2629].

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 914]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

Author's Address

   Doug Ewell (editor)
   Consultant

   Email: [email-masked]
   URI:   http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 915]

Internet-Draft   Update to the Language Subtag Registry     January 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   [email-masked].

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Ewell                     Expires July 18, 2007               [Page 916]
 

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:02:07 -0000

Hi 

Have read the document in question and all looks well (other than I would
have used "has been" and "is" rather than "was" in a number of places).

However, I find the following type of record format in the Registry (for
Áncá and other records with diacritics) totally unacceptable:

%%
Type: language
Subtag: acb
Description: &#xC1;nc&#xE1;
Added: 2008-01-01
%%

I know we have had this discussion before with regard to "Norwegian
Bokm&#xE5;l" and "Norwegian Bokmal" and indeed the dreaded apostrophe in
N'Ko.  Where did we get with it?  I would prefer to see both and I had
thought this was agreed.  There needs to be an element of human readability
within the Registry methinks!

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 15 January 2007 02:38
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Submission: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01
> 
> Because this draft is over 802,000 bytes and 916 pages long 
> -- longer than the previous draft because of the inclusion of 
> about 1,400 inverted/uninverted pairs -- I was once again 
> disinclined to post it to the mailing list.  Instead, I've 
> attached a reduced version that includes all of the prose, 
> but omits most of the proposed new Registry contents.  You 
> can view or download the complete draft at one of the 
> following locations:
> 
> Of course, once the draft is officially posted to the IETF 
> site, you can get it there as well.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  
> UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> Internet-Draft                                                
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:12:25 +0100

Debbie Garside wrote:

> There needs to be an element of human readability within the Registry
> methinks!

It's perfectly readable on any device supporting ASCII.  Unofficial XML
conversions are at the usual places.  If you've extracted the registry,
removing the page breaks etc., you could also transform it into simple
HTML by adding a line...

	<title> whatever you like </title<pre>

...at the begin, and a line...

	</pre>

...at the end.  Any browser supporting hex. NCRs and the fonts required
for the encoded non-ASCII characters would then display it.  Fortunately
there are no offending "<" characters in the proposed registry.  Should
we demand to encode "<" and ">" as hex. NCRs ?

Frank

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:37:52 -0800

not a bad idea.

-- 
Mark

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:13:55 -0800

Nah. That's a problem for conversions to/from XML. Besides, we don't 
have any examples of the problem to deal with.

Addison

Mark Davis wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:55:01 -0800

But it doesn't hurt any to guarantee that there are no characters that would
cause problems.

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:18:08 -0800

You mean like ampersand? We could get carried away here with additional 
escape fun. I'm not wild about changing anything we don't need to: this 
we don't need to change. The characters in question are a quirk of the 
*target* format and have nothing to do with the record-jar format. 
Caveat convertor.

Addison