Subject: [Ltru] Re: does the Draft gives all the guidelines required by the Registry

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:34:11 -0700

Jefsey Morfin <jefsey at online dot fr> wrote:

>> LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
>> Name of requester          : Karen Broome
>> E-mail address of requester: [email-masked]
>
> This information is of no interest to the users. It gives Karen Broome
> and possibly Sony a stewardship on the American Spanish some could
> seriously object.

Incorrect.  It says right there, "Name of requester."  It is the name of
the person who has filed the request to have the language tag
registered.  Neither RFC 3066 nor any other document implies or requires
that the requester has any expertise in the language.

The presence of "sony.com" in Karen's e-mail address says nothing about
Sony's support of, or opposition to, her request, just as the presence
of "adelphia.net" in my e-mail address says nothing about whether
Adelphia agrees with what I say here.

It is true that most users will not care who requested a tag, once the
tag is registered.

>> Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): espanol de America
>> Latina, espanol latinoamericano
>
> This information misses the French name of the language.

Rightly or wrongly, this information is not required by RFC 3066.  See
page 8.

>From the remainder of his comments, I take it Jefsey opposes the
registration of "es-419".

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:20:26 +0200

Dear Doug,
I wish first you do not misconstrue by error my comments. I do not 
criticise what Michael has done (he himself has asked possible 
discrepancies to be fixed off line, what shows this is not easy for him). I 
want us to check, on probably the most complex example so far, that the 
current Draft would have helped him better. I wish too to see if it removes 
the difficulties which may lead to the removal of this registry from the 
IANA. Because people in charge may be "very hesitant to involve IANA in any 
direct way with either the language or country code authorities".

So, my references are not to the RFC 3066 but to the Draft.

>that the requester has any expertise in the language.

I am glad you write that.

1. I think the first requirement should be that he is authoritative in the 
language or an active user of the language.
2. the Draft gives the registrant a priority/authority in discussing 
modifications concerning the language I want to see removed, for the reason 
you give: nothing "implies or requires that the request has any expertise 
in the language".
3. actually I do not see any reason why this name is recorded. No one owns 
a language: the request just represents the lingual or the global internet 
commuity. Otherwise the participants to the ietf-languages mailing list 
should also be recorded.
4. IMHO the procedure should be the otherway around. Anyone can register 
any language except if within 15 days were risen serious objections 
accepted by the Reviewer.

>It is true that most users will not care who requested a tag, once the

This is not necessarily the feeling everywhere. When Peter Constable and 
Mark Davis registered Tajik and Chinese langtags, you may have noted that 
several times the mention was made on the [email-masked] 
mailing list these requests were made by Microsoft and IBM. I took 
acception of that in made some publicity of it (what was reproached to me). 
A Government note was copied to me about the concern that this might lead 
sales people to label their product "xxxx IANA registered xx-xxxx-xx 
inside". This is in direct line with the IAB fear in RFC 3869 (I quote: 
"The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the 
main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the 
Internet infrastructure could be in trouble.").

You will understand that as a non-commercially funded searcher (AFRAC is a 
non-profit), I share these concerns expressed by several officials from 
different countries on different continents.

>Rightly or wrongly, this information is not required by RFC 3066.  See

I know and this is why I note it. General consensus among the non English 
mother tongue and a broad part of educated English mother tongue searchers 
I know is that the best fit is to use English as a koine and a quick 
experimentation tool due to its capacity to accept lose definitions and 
intuitive mutual rough understanding, and to use French as a reference 
language. The QA comes from a simultaneous work in both languages. The 
famous example of MPEG shown that MPEG convergence (radio, TV, media) could 
not have happen without a first working bridge between the English standard 
texts in French (to have a common term definition of the difference 
standards) to support the further work in English and a finalisation 
through duallanguage QA.

Translation of the French version with the assistance of the English 
version is often easier and more precise in other languages.

> registration of "es-419".

Total misconstruction of my comment.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:00:13 -0700

r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:

> discrepancies to be fixed off line, what shows this is not easy for
> him). I want us to check, on probably the most complex example so far,
> that the current Draft would have helped him better.

I thought the problems with the "es-419" registration were of a fairly
minor clerical nature, not complex and technical.

> I wish too to see if it removes the difficulties which may lead to the
> removal of this registry from the IANA. Because people in charge may
> be "very hesitant to involve IANA in any direct way with either the
> language or country code authorities".

What "people in charge"?  What "removal"?

RFC 3066 designates a Language Tag Reviewer who may, from time to time,
have occasion to deal directly with ISO 639/RA and ISO 3166/MA, but not
on a regular basis.  The draft does the same for the Language Subtag
Reviewer.  IANA is not involved with these agencies at all; the Reviewer
forwards material to them with instructions to put the material in the
registry.

>>> This information is of no interest to the users. It gives Karen
>>> Broome and possibly Sony a stewardship on the American Spanish some
>>> could seriously object.
>>
>> Incorrect.  It says right there, "Name of requester."  It is the name
>> of the person who has filed the request to have the language tag
>> registered.  Neither RFC 3066 nor any other document implies or
>> requires that the requester has any expertise in the language.
>
> 1. I think the first requirement should be that he is authoritative in
> the language or an active user of the language.

The requester needs to have a need or desire to assign a tag to new or
existing material in the language, and know enough *about* the language
to establish that this need or desire is not met by existing tags.  Note
that I did not say the requester has to *know* the language, but rather
know *about* it.

This is exactly Karen's situation: she needs to be able to assign a tag
to Spanish-language material that has been determined to be suitable for
a wide range of Latin American audiences.  She may not have been
involved in the process of making that determination, and she may not
even speak Spanish, but she is the one responsible for tagging the
material, and understands enough about (a) Spanish and its regional
differences and (b) RFC 3066 and tagging to know what needs to be done.

As you correctly state later, no one "owns" a language.  The requester
of a tag (or, under the current draft, a subtag) is just that: the
person who made the request.  Some people may imagine that this implies
some sort of ownership, but those people would be mistaken.

> modifications concerning the language I want to see removed, for the
> reason you give: nothing "implies or requires that the request has any
> expertise in the language".

RFC 3066 gave the requester the same priority with regard to her
request.  Again, the requester is assumed to be someone with expertise
and authority in her operational need to tag material in language X, not
necessarily someone with expertise and authority in language X.  I hope
this distinction is clear.

> 3. actually I do not see any reason why this name is recorded. No one
> owns a language: the request just represents the lingual or the global
> internet commuity. Otherwise the participants to the ietf-languages
> mailing list should also be recorded.

The name is recorded for clerical reasons.  It is not necessary for
using or understanding the tag.

The participants in the ietf-languages mailing list are recorded, of
course, in the publicly available archives.

> 4. IMHO the procedure should be the otherway around. Anyone can
> register any language except if within 15 days were risen serious
> objections accepted by the Reviewer.

That's sort of the way it is, except that people do not register tags
directly; they request them, ietf-languages discusses them, the Reviewer
approves them, and IANA does the clerical work of updating the registry.

>> The presence of "sony.com" in Karen's e-mail address says nothing
>> about Sony's support of, or opposition to, her request, just as the
>> presence of "adelphia.net" in my e-mail address says nothing about
>> whether Adelphia agrees with what I say here.
>>
>> It is true that most users will not care who requested a tag, once
>> the tag is registered.
>
> This is not necessarily the feeling everywhere. When Peter Constable
> and Mark Davis registered Tajik and Chinese langtags, you may have
> noted that several times the mention was made on the
> [email-masked] mailing list these requests were made by
> Microsoft and IBM. I took acception of that in made some publicity of
> it (what was reproached to me).

All requests are made by individuals.  Sometimes those individuals are
acting on the basis of their employers' business need.  That is my
understanding of the connection between Microsoft and IBM and the tags
you mention.

The requester of "en-scouse" back in 2000 was Keith Szlamp.  His e-mail
address, back then, was <keith at szlamp dot com>.  I have no way of
knowing whether Keith requested this tag out of personal amusement, or
because he is a speaker of Scouse or an academic expert on it, or
because he worked for a multi-billion-euro company whose business needs
demanded it.  But I know that if I want more information about this
registration, I might try looking up "Keith Szlamp" on the Internet, or
check whether his e-mail address from 2000 is still active.  That is why
information about the requester might be of value.

> A Government note was copied to me about the concern that this might
> lead sales people to label their product "xxxx IANA registered
> xx-xxxx-xx inside". This is in direct line with the IAB fear in RFC
> 3869 (I quote: "The principal thesis of this document is that if
> commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet
> research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in
> trouble.").

Such labeling would be inappropriate.  (It would not be the first time
sales people had done such a thing, though.)

RFC 3066 provides for tags to be registered in an IANA registry.  If
that mechanism is used in accordance with the RFC, as happened with
Scouse and with the Tajik and Chinese registrations, there is no
negative impact on IANA or the Internet infrastructure.  The same is
true for registering subtags uner the draft.

> You will understand that as a non-commercially funded searcher (AFRAC
> is a non-profit), I share these concerns expressed by several
> officials from different countries on different continents.

Sometimes it is necessary to respond to people's concerns by showing
them that everything is fine and that their fears are unfounded.  No
non-commercial interests are harmed when a tag or subtag is registered
because a commercial operation needs it.

>>>> Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): espanol de
>>>> America Latina, espanol latinoamericano
>>>
>> Rightly or wrongly, this information is not required by RFC 3066.
>> See page 8.
>
> I know and this is why I note it. General consensus among the non
> English mother tongue and a broad part of educated English mother
> tongue searchers I know is that the best fit is to use English as a
> koine and a quick experimentation tool due to its capacity to accept
> lose definitions and intuitive mutual rough understanding, and to use
> French as a reference language. The QA comes from a simultaneous work
> in both languages. The famous example of MPEG shown that MPEG
> convergence (radio, TV, media) could not have happen without a first
> working bridge between the English standard texts in French (to have a
> common term definition of the difference standards) to support the
> further work in English and a finalisation through duallanguage QA.
>

I won't get into the relative merits of the French and English
languages.  Toutes les deux sont bonnes, n'est-ce pas ?

You may recall that I originally favored the addition of French
descriptions, which had never been required of RFC 1766 and 3066
registrations.  What killed it for me, and perhaps others, was the
proposal to expand this concept exponentially, by turning the registry
into a compendium of "every language name in every language."  Do you
remember who proposed that?

> Total misconstruction of my comment.

I am glad you do not oppose the registration.  That you oppose the draft
is well documented.