Subject: [Ltru] Re: modification of Prefix fields

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:03:51 -0700

Stephen Silver <ltru at argentum dot freeserve dot co dot uk> wrote:

> The current draft of 4646bis disagrees with itself on the question of 
> whether 'Prefix' fields can be modified.
>
> In section 3.1.7, it says:
>
>  The field of type 'Prefix' MUST NOT be removed from any record.
>  The field-body for this type of field MUST NOT be modified.
>
> But in section 3.4, bullet 4, it says:
>
>  Values in the field 'Prefix' in records of type 'variant' MAY be
>  modified, so long as the modifications broaden the set of prefixes.
>  That is, a prefix MAY be replaced by one of its own prefixes.

Good catch.  This wording was carried over from RFC 4646, where we in 
LTRU started out thinking that no modifications should be allowed, and 
then came to understand the potential for multiple prefixes or 
broadening changes.  We need to change the first passage to match the 
second.

--
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: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:14:11 -0700

I changed the first instance to read:

<t>The field of type 'Prefix' MUST NOT be removed from any record. The 
field-body for this type of field MAY be modified, but only if the 
modification broadens the meaning of the subtag. That is, the field-body 
can be replaced only by a prefix a prefix of itself. For example, the 
Prefix "be-Latn" (Belarusian, Latin script) could be replaced by the 
Prefix "be" (Belarusian) but not by the Prefix "ru-Latn" (Russian, Latin 
script).</t>

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:08:45 -0700

I'd suggest slightly different wording, since saying that it cannot be
removed but can be modified is a bit odd. So I'd suggest:

The collection of fields of type 'Prefix' MUST NOT be changed in a way that
narrows the meaning of the subtag. If there is no Prefix, then one cannot be
added. If there a Prefix, then others can be added. A Prefix can be removed
only if it is redundant: there is another Prefix that covers all of the
cases that it does. For example:
  Prefix: zh-Hant
  Prefix: zh-Hans
can be replaced by
  Prefix: zh
  Prefix: ru
This is because addition of zh makes zh-Hant and zh-Hans redundant, so they
can be removed, and the addition of "ru" only broadens.

Mark

On 4/30/07, Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/<http://users.adelphia.net/%7Edewell/>

-- 
Mark

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 05:57:56 +0200

Mark Davis wrote:

> Prefix: zh-Hant
> Prefix: zh-Hans
> can be replaced by
> Prefix: zh
> Prefix: ru
> This is because addition of zh makes zh-Hant and zh-Hans redundant,
> so they can be removed, and the addition of "ru" only broadens.

For 4646bis we might better stay away from zh-tags in examples (?)
Otherwise your wording is a bit clearer, matter of taste, probably.

In your version s/because addition/because the addition/
In Addison's version s/a prefix a prefix/a prefix/ (?)

Frank