Subject: [Ltru] XML

From: "Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:00:24 -0500

I guess there is already software that can read the subtag registry as
it is today, but i think if it was XML based, the whole process would
work as it were on steroids, especially in the long run. Then one could
use streaming XML APIs, and XSLT to read the registry.

I'm not doing a schema for this sample just yet, but a sample of what
they could look like follows below. One could have a parent element of
Prefixes for an array of Prefix elements, but i think it could also be
represented w/o it, as shown below.

<Record>
	<Type>variant</Type>
	<Subtag>baku1926</Subtag>
	<Description>
	Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet (Historical)
	</Description>
	<Added>2007-04-18</Added>
	<Prefix>az</Prefix>
	<Prefix>ba</Prefix>
	<Prefix>crh</Prefix>
	<Prefix>kk</Prefix>
	<Prefix>krc</Prefix>
	<Prefix>ky</Prefix>
	<Prefix>sah</Prefix>
	<Prefix>tk</Prefix>
	<Prefix>tt</Prefix>
	<Prefix>uz</Prefix>
	<Comments>
	Denotes alphabet used in Turkic republics/regions of the
 former USSR in late 1920s, and throughout 1930s, which aspired to
 represent equivalent phonemes in a unified fashion. Also known as: New
 Turkic Alphabet; Birl&#x4D9;&#x15F;dirilmi&#x15F; Jeni Tyrk
 &#x4D8;lifbas&#x44C;; Ja&#x14B;alif.
	</Comments>
</Record>

- --
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:30:19 +0200

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:00:24PM -0500,
 Reshat Sabiq (Re?at) <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 54 lines which said:

> I guess there is already software that can read the subtag registry
> as it is today, but i think if it was XML based, the whole process
> would work as it were on steroids, especially in the long run. Then
> one could use streaming XML APIs, and XSLT to read the registry.

No need to dream, it is already there (and in many other formats,
too).

http://www.langtag.net/registries.html

> I'm not doing a schema for this sample just yet,

Your schema seems quite clsoe to mine
(http://www.langtag.net/registries/ltru.rnc) and I suggest that people
interested in moving this schema from the current draft to a "real"
schema, production-ready, gather in private since XML work is not well
received on the LTRU list.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:44:37 +0900

>received on the LTRU list.

The statement in the last clause is only partially true.
When I made an attempt at a consensus call on this issue (many months ago),
my recollection was that a slight majority of the people responding
favored moving to XML, but that that majority wasn't strong enough
to make the change, in particular because the people who would have
had to do the actual work (read: editors) weren't very excited.

It is true that if we stay with the current state (no XML), then
we shouldn't use the list to discuss XML, because we want to
concentrate to get our documents out.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:55:17 -0500

>> received on the LTRU list.
OK, looks like you guys have it covered. I would just prefer using XML
Schema for schema, because i think it's the most standard way, and while
i'm not an XML guru per se, it is likely to be the most powerful as well.
Also, it might be worth considering supporting multiple languages for
some textual elements (by requiring a lang attribute), as in:
	<Description lang="en">
	Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet (Historical)
	</Description>
> concentrate to get our documents out.
For what it's worth, i'm ready to vote for XML. Lemme know if you folks
ever need an extra vote.

- --

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:04:44 -0400

> i'm not an XML guru per se, it is likely to be the most powerful as well.

It is neither the most standard nor the most powerful.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://ccil.org/~cowan
In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
        --Gerald Holton

---

From: "Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:45:25 -0500

Addison Phillips yazmış:
> XML has already been rejected several times.
> 
> Whether or not I like the idea of an XML registry, I absolutely oppose,
> at this late date, changing the registry format to XML. Stephane, et al,
> have provided some very nice XML versions/transformations of the
> registry. If you like XML, use those. The canonical registry, though, is
> in the record-jar format.
Yes, it's an option as a work-around, but it being unofficial will cause
people to avoid it most of the time.
Some notes:
http://www.langtag.net/registries/language-subtag-registry.xml
this has missing comments.

http://www.langtag.net/registries/language-subtag-registry2.xml
This shows UTF-8 and XML together quite well, although i'd lean towards
making tag an element rather than attribute.

- From baku1926 in the latter, does it seem to you redundant to have ASCII
escapes next to UTF-8? I think it seems redundant to me, despite some
really made up characters in that alphabet.

- --

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:57:57 +0200

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:45:25PM -0500,
 Reshat Sabiq (Re?at) <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 45 lines which said:

> Some notes:
> http://www.langtag.net/registries/language-subtag-registry.xml this
> has missing comments.

I though nobody would notice :-) Anyway, it was simple to fix. Done.

> http://www.langtag.net/registries/language-subtag-registry2.xml This
> shows UTF-8 and XML together quite well, although i'd lean towards

[Aaahhh, the famous "element vs. attribute" fight of every XML-related
discussion :-) ]

There is no official XML schema for the LSR. If some people are
interested, we can set up a group to try to define one?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:05:19 +0200

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 11:55:17AM -0500,
 Reshat Sabiq (Re?at) <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 42 lines which said:

> I would just prefer using XML Schema for schema,

> because i think it's the most standard way, 

Standard? In what way? RFC 3470 "Guidelines for the Use of Extensible
Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols" does not give it any
special status. Some RFC use W3C XML Schema (RFC 4931), some use
another schema langage (RFC 4287).

Even at its birthplace of W3C, they now use Relax NG for some
standards (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/). 

> and while i'm not an XML guru per se, it is likely to be the most
> powerful as well.

Sorry, as you say, you are not a guru. One can say many things about
the strengths and weaknesses of the various XML schema languages but I
believe that there is a clear consensus that Relax NG is by far the
most powerful.

> 	Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet (Historical)

This is not possible for the recordjar2anything converters because the
information is not, unfortunately, in the registry.