Subject: [Ltru] Re: "mis" update review request

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:18:33 -0700

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

> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>>> IMHO this language should go into 4646bis, of course made more 
>>> formal.
>>
>> +1.  Doing this would be preferable to annotating "mis" and friends 
>> in the Registry.
>
> No, users including taggers read at best the registry record, not the 
> specification.  A warning about such dangerously misleading tags like 
> "mis" needs to be in the registry.  Or we exclude "mis" from 4645bis.

There are lots of details about RFC 4646(bis) that would be missed by 
someone who reads only the Registry.  Should we design a specification 
under the assumption that people will not read it?  Is anyone else 
uncomfortable with this approach?

> Stability is no issue, a tag where nobody (maybe minus John and Peter) 
> knows or agrees what it means is anyway hopeless.

That's why I agree with John that Peter's explanation, or a formalized 
version thereof, should be added to the spec.

--
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: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:53:51 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> someone who reads only the Registry.

It could be only me, but I fear it's not.  Of course I looked into the
spec. for reviews, while checking the ABNF etc., and again before my
registratioin requests.  Otherwise I was always far more interested in
the raw registry data, or in the corresponding parts of your drafts.

> Should we design a specification under the assumption that people
> will not read it?

Admittedly I hoped that the expert reviewer would read it.  Ordinary
users might just imitate what they see elsewhere in their tags, and
somebody looking into the registry is a nerd.  And for readers of the
spec. I fear that they're a proper  subset of the folks posting here
or on the review list.

> Is anyone else uncomfortable with this approach?

Humans are lazy.  The rules are mainly for those trying to enforce or
implement them, IANA, IESG, Michael, you, any anybody who intends to
disagree with you. 

> I agree with John that Peter's explanation, or a formalized version
> thereof, should be added to the spec.

I've no problem with that idea.  But I also want John's short and IMO
clear "mis" explanation as comment in the registry, it's the polite
form of a "DO NOT USE" for readers of the registry with a minimum of
good will and common sense.
  
Frank

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:18:45 -0700

I think we are nearly consensus on what to do with a number of these special
items: und, art, mis, zxx, etc. But I don't think we are quite there yet.

Because they are interrelated, I don't think we want any comments added
until we are sure that we have a complete picture for all of them. Once that
is the case, then adding comments would be good.

Moreover, it would be really good to add some comments at the very top with
a warning that many of the items cannot be understood simply from the data
file, and point people to the URL for more discussion.

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:19:02 -0700

nearly=>nearing

On 4/17/07, Mark Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> I think we are nearly consensus on what to do with a number of these
> special items: und, art, mis, zxx, etc. But I don't think we are quite there
> yet.
>
> Moreover, it would be really good to add some comments at the very top
> with a warning that many of the items cannot be understood simply from the
> data file, and point people to the URL for more discussion.
>
> Mark
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:34:48 -0400

> items: und, art, mis, zxx, etc. But I don't think we are quite there yet.

+1

> is the case, then adding comments would be good.

+1

> file, and point people to the URL for more discussion.

Unfortunately the format makes no provision for such comments.

-- 
Is not a patron, my Lord [Chesterfield],        John Cowan
one who looks with unconcern on a man           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
struggling for life in the water, and when      [email-masked]
he has reached ground encumbers him with help?
        --Samuel Johnson

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:50:21 +0000

It is wisely said that those who forge the chains are most likely to  
shackle themselves. Is it truly too late to change the format in the  
respect outlined below?
mg

On 17 Apr 2007, at 17:34, scríobh John Cowan:
>> Mark Davis scripsit:
>> ... Moreover, it would be really good to add some comments at the  
>> very top with

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:44:03 -0700

> Unfortunately the format makes no provision for such comments.

But there is no reason that this cannot be rectified, perhaps by 
borrowing the text from draft-phillips-record-jar. I still don't know 
why there was opposition to file-level commenting in the 3066bis era.

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:26:08 -0700

+1

On 4/17/07, Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote:
> with

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:14:40 -0400

> why there was opposition to file-level commenting in the 3066bis era.

It's not clear how to maintain it vis-a-vis IANA.

-- 
By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall     [email-masked]
have neither the Ring nor me!  --Frodo          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:43:26 +0200

John Cowan wrote:
 
>> borrowing the text from draft-phillips-record-jar. I still don't
>> know why there was opposition to file-level commenting in the
>> 3066bis era.
 
> It's not clear how to maintain it vis-a-vis IANA.

It won't help with issues for individual subtags like "mis".  A good
example how records can be used is Richard's "registry explorer", it
shows complete records.

I think IANA would have no problem with a revised ABNF.  But a new
syntax could obsolete some / many / most existing tools for the 4646
format.  If 4646bis tries this the reasons should be compelling, and
then we'd have to consider the complete wish list again, from UTF-8
and/or XML over ISO 639-3 status fields up to file-level comments.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:56:42 -0400

> and/or XML over ISO 639-3 status fields up to file-level comments.

This wouldn't be a *complete* change of syntax, just adding comment
fields to the first (File-Date) record.  As things stand, though,
IANA manages that record themselves, directly; adding comments
creates a mixture of IANA-controlled and list-controlled content
in a single record, which is administratively problematic.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan      [email-masked]      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:33:52 +0200

> in a single record, which is administratively problematic.

They manage the body of the File-Date field in the first record, or
in plain English the timestamp.  There are no other fields in this
record at the moment.  Just for fun I tested a file starting with:

| File-Date: 2007-03-06
| Comment: crash and burn
| %%
| Type: language
| Subtag: aa
| Description: Afar
[...]

My silly gawk scripts simply ignore the comment (no output).  But my
REXX script to check cross references etc. directly did exactly what
the comment says:

|      +++ OS/2 COMMAND F:\BIN\projects\ltru\scripts.cmd
|      +++ trap: 2 Comment: crash and burn
|   69 *-* otherwise   exit TRAP( LINE REC )

Okay, that's no realistic / fair test, this REXX script was designed
to detect obscure oddities in Doug's drafts before the 4645 WGLC.

Frank