Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Revised forms for Montenegrin (was: RE: Macrolanguage)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 16:09:18 -0700

Let me back up, because I'm really confused.

Earlier, Kent Karlsson wrote:

> If we are to have comments like:
>
> Comments: see <every other language code under the same macrolanguage>
> for <every other language under the same macrolanguage>
>
> then we should do so systematically. We don't seem to have them for
> any other macrolanguage, so why for 'sh' (and then only partial such
> comments)?

and I replied:

> I suggested this comment in
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00083.html

and Kent replied:

> Your current proposed records do not follow your suggestion in that
> email.

I have to confess I do not know what Kent is driving at here.

In
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00083.html
I wrote:

> When [cnr] does appear on the ISO 639-2 and/or 639-3 code tables,
> which will trigger its addition to the Registry, I will propose
> including this field in the new 'cnr' record:
>
> Comments: see sr
>
> and adding this field to the existing 'sr' record:
>
> Comments: see cnr

In
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00084.html
John Cowan replied:

> I would change the latter ["see cnr"] to "see cnr for Montenegrin",
> since few will know what the code means.

and in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00085.html
I replied to John:

> That seems reasonable.

Then, in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00090.html
Michael Everson replied:

> Those are a little terse.

and in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00091.html
I replied to Michael:

> They are what we have used for years. Only a very few Comments fields
> for language and extlang subtags are longer than "see A, B, C".
>
> I am fine with "see sr for Serbian" and "see cnr for Montenegrin" in
> this case.

and that is what I put in the records for Montenegrin and Serbian today.

So yes, strictly speaking I followed the refined template in msg0085 and
msg00091, "see xxx for XXX", as suggested by other list members, rather
than the shorter template "see xxx" that I originally proposed in
msg00083.

But I don't think this is what Kent is getting at. I was under the
impression he objected to the "see" comments in any form, because we do
not do this consistently for every macrolanguage situation. And I tried
to explain that it wasn't meant to be done for every macrolanguage (and
indeed "macrolanguage" has nothing to do with this), but only in this
rather extreme case of assigning a new language subtag that was
previously widely understood to be covered by an existing language
subtag.

Can someone please explain to me what I am missing here?
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:41:30 +0100

My preference is to delete those comments.

If that is not possible, please follow what is already in the registry for
similar (and very terse) comments (and what you had in the first email you
referenced, but complete not partial).

I'm not at all trying to be obscure.

/Kent K

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 21:15:54 -0700

> My preference is to delete those comments.

Fair enough. I think they would be helpful to users, but I don't insist 
on them. The Reviewer can decide, possibly with the input of others 
besides you and me. I'll wait for his decision before posting new forms.

> If that is not possible,

It is certainly possible. Comments fields are one place where we can 
recommend almost anything to the Reviewer, and he can approve almost 
anything, though I will predictably fight against lengthy encyclopedic 
or bibliographic references.

> please follow what is already in the registry for similar (and very
> terse) comments (and what you had in the first email you referenced,

viz. "Comments: see sr" and "Comments: see cnr".

> but complete not partial).

I don't understand. If this means "figure out every case in which a user 
would likely look up the wrong subtag, and add a cross-reference to the 
right one," I'm pretty sure nobody will take on that research project. 
There are almost 9,000 subtags in the Registry.

> I'm not at all trying to be obscure.

I don't suggest the obscurity was intentional.

---

From: Philip Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 07:45:50 +0100

> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-languages/current/msg00085.html

To me as well, for what it's worth.

Ph.

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:24 +0000

> On 9 Jan 2018, at 04:15, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> 
> Fair enough. I think they would be helpful to users, but I don't insist on them. The Reviewer can decide, possibly with the input of others besides you and me. I'll wait for his decision before posting new forms.

I don’t see any advantage to deleting the comments or any harm in retaining them.

Michael