Subject: [Ltru] Re: editor's copy of draft-20 updated...‏

From: CE Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:19:10 -0500

Hi,  I agree that (1), should we remove all fields of type prefix once they have been added to a record, that this would constitute a substantial change in the draft (and not just a change in the wording);and that (2), in any case, subtags like 'und' and 'mul' are real language subtags and must not be used in place of a wildcard. I am not sure I wholly oppose the use of a wild card in a subtag  as we now have variant subtags (fonipa, fonupa) registered without prefixes. A wildcard would allow us to narrow the range of prefixes for such subtags a bit.    However, I am not the one to say whether such a change is allowed at this point..  If it is, or even if it is not, is there some way to specify a limitation on the various prefixes that might be appropriate with a variant subtag--one without any prefixes registered, or one with only a wildcard as the registered prefix; I'm using "fonupa" an an example; I do not know if it is the best example either:The ietf reference for that 
 alphabet was/is:http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2419.pdf It's a subtag that's really only used with Uralic and some other 'Altaic' languages. How would one place restrictions on it or other similar subtags (or is this something that the subtag user must know?  If the latter, why are we placing so many restrictions or are we only placing restrictions on syntax?). Or is it too late to discuss this at this point? (I too recall this being discussed before.  I'll try to find the URL sometime.  I think it was when we were duscussing registering a suppress-script for subtags other than primary language subtags--at ietf-languages.) C. E. [email-masked] 

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:12:49 -0800

Hi -

Both as co-chair and as a technical contributor...

> From: "CE Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:19 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: editor's copy of draft-20 updated...‏
...
> It's a subtag that's really only used with Uralic and some other 'Altaic' languages.
> How would one place restrictions on it or other similar subtags

We provide no machine-processable representation for such constraints.
However, there is plenty of text about the semantic limitations on the
applicability of variant subtags.

> (or is this something that the subtag user must know?

yes

>  If the latter, why are we placing so many restrictions or are we only
> placing restrictions on syntax?).

We're talking about the syntax of the registry, and permissible changes
to registry contents.  This actually has no bearing on what constitutes a
well-formed or valid language tag.  Prefix values are only advisory,
subject to the overriding "tag wisely" ethos.

> Or is it too late to discuss this at this point?

I think it's really too late to revisit the philosophy.

As far as I can recall, no instances where this approach would cause any
problems have been mentioned on the [email-masked] mailing list.
Unless you can identify a seriously broken case not covered by existing
language in the drafts, I think it's better for us as a WG to say "good enough"
and request that the updates be considered for BCP.

Randy