Subject: [Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:08:34 -0400

A lot of the discrepancy results because wdiff can't synchronize properly,
and most of the rest is normal editorial fixup.  Speaking of which,
here are some mostly editorial things I spotted:

BNF:  In the current state of things, why are we allowing two extlangs
rather than one or three?  Allowing two makes "zh-min-nan" regular rather
than irregular, but surely that is a trivial point.  One is all that will
be allowed in non-grandfathered cases.  Three is what 4646 permitted.
I'd go for three, even though the capacity won't be used, just to avoid
a gratuitous change to the production.

In 2.2.4 and and 2.2.5, point 1 says "language" instead of "language,
extended language" for the tags which must precede the tag currently
under discussion.  In 2.2.6 it's point 9, in 2.2.7 point 3.

In the first of the three examples at the end of 2.2.4, why was
Switzerland replaced with Austria?

2.2.8: Probably no need to enumerate the regular grandfathered tags in
prose, since they are now enumerated in the BNF.

2.2.8 near the end: s/superseded/superseded by/.

3.1.2: in bullet point 'Type', add comma after "redundant".

3.1.2: s/MUST only appear/MUST appear only/.

3.1.2: s/will always follow/will always conform to/.

4.4.1: bring back extlangs here

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  [email-masked]
'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale.  --Greg Baker
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:48:12 +0200

John Cowan wrote:

> rather than one or three?

That is not the case:

extlang       = 3ALPHA              ; selected ISO 639 codes
                *2("-" 3ALPHA)      ; permanently reserved

This allows for 1-3 (extlang) subtags in an 'extlang'. We could do
without the second line, allowing just one subtag in an 'extlang'.

But at most one extlang is allowed in a 'language':

		...
                ["-" extlang]       ; sometimes followed by 

	/kent k

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:53:20 -0400

> > rather than one or three?

Thanks for the correction.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of giants.
        --Isaac Newton
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:04:00 -0700

(editor hat now OFF)

> I'd go for three, even though the capacity won't be used, just to
> avoid a gratuitous change to the production.

I follow the latter part of your comment, but not the first part. The ABNF allows 0, 1, 2, or 3 extlangs. It is functionally equivalent to the older version. I did anticipate the question about changing the actual BNF notation to permanently reserve the second and third positions, but thought I'd include it initially (for much the same reason that we put the 'regular' production in, etc.). It even turned out to be useful to me in my implementation (I can look at that grouping in the regular expression and 'invalidate' tags without bothering to look at the subtags).

(editor hat now ON)

> under discussion.  In 2.2.6 it's point 9, in 2.2.7 point 3.

Done.

> Switzerland replaced with Austria?

I don't quite recall, but I think it has to do with the discussion of "gsw" vs "de-CH". Austria doesn't have this problem.

>
> 2.2.8: Probably no need to enumerate the regular grandfathered tags
> in prose, since they are now enumerated in the BNF.

Done. Text now reads:

<t>Grandfathered tags that (appear to) match the 'langtag' production in <xref target="ABNF"></xref> are considered 'regular' grandfathered tags. These tags either contain subtags that do not individually appear in the registry, or their subtags appear but with a different semantic meaning: each tag, in its entirety, represents a language or collection of languages.</t>

> 2.2.8 near the end: s/superseded/superseded by/.

Done.
> 3.1.2: in bullet point 'Type', add comma after "redundant".

Done.
> 3.1.2: s/MUST only appear/MUST appear only/.

Done 6x.
> 3.1.2: s/will always follow/will always conform to/.

Done.

> 4.4.1: bring back extlangs here

Will study this and bring back the text. Haven't done it yet: I'm teaching a class in a few minutes.
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:08:38 -0400

Phillips, Addison scripsit:

> I follow the latter part of your comment, but not the first part. The
> ABNF allows 0, 1, 2, or 3 extlangs. It is functionally equivalent to the
> older version. 

As I posted earlier, I misread of the diff.

-- 
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far     John Cowan
coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that      http://ccil.org/~cowan
O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word  [email-masked]
to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All
she there told him, ruing death for friend so young,    James Joyce, Ulysses
algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay.   "Oxen of the Sun"
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru