Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:45:55 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Addison Phillips

> However, using variants complicates matters. The transformation
applied to the text
> is only one dimension of the content...

The complication you site is that variants can distinguish dialectal
variants, or variants in written form (just as region subtags can
distinguish regional variations in dialect or regional variations in
written form), and the two are not distinguish (any more than they are
for region subtags).

> Extensions allow this kind of semi-orthogonal, language-related
distinction to be
> applied. Consider:
>   zh-wuu-CN-t-wadegile

I don't see why this is superior in any way to zh-wuu-CN-wadegile, and
can see reasons why it's inferior: the extension is ignorable by
anything that knows only RFC 3066bis and not some other extensions RFC.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:25:24 +0100

Peter Constable wrote:

>I don't see why this is superior in any way to zh-wuu-CN-wadegile, and can 
>see reasons why it's inferior: the extension is ignorable by anything that
> knows only RFC 3066bis and not some other extensions RFC.

Good point... unless of course the -t- is added to RFC3066bis

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: 31 March 2005 21:46
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation

On Behalf Of

applied to the text

distinction to be

Peter Constable