Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:05:41 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

>> The draft is not consistent with itself.  Section 2.2.4 (3E), quoted
>> above, says we can register such subtags.  Section 3.4 (11), to which
>> I referred, says we may not.
> ...
>
> I think you mean section 3.3 (11).

Yep.

> The text there in the
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-08.txt
> draft says:
> ...
>         This rule exists so that UN M.49 codes remain available as the
>         value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166 reassigns a
>         deprecated value in the registry.
>
> The difference in our understanding comes from the last sentence.  I
> think Doug is reading it as the *sole* condition under which rule
> 3.3(11) may be employed.

That is correct.

> I, and I think Frank, read it as the *motivation* for the
> rule, rather than a limiting condition.  The two readings play out
> differently if the ISO 3166 registration authority fails to assign a
> code when petitioned.  In Doug's reading, there's no registration,
> and the party needing the code is out of luck.  In the alternative
> reading, after some undefined (I'd leave it up to the collective
> intelligence of the language tag mailing list) period, the UN M.49
> code could be registered.  The question for the WG is which behaviour
> is better / less bad?

It depends on how likely we think this scenario is (using Guernsey as an
example; substitute Jersey or IOM as appropriate):

We add region subtag 831, and then at some point in the future, ISO
3166/MA adds code element GG, resulting in widespread popular
association of the symbol GG with Guernsey, and criticism of the LTRU
project for having assigned 831 instead.

This is what I thought one of Frank's biggest concerns was.  (The other
was that the MA, having reserved GG for Guernsey, would assign it to
some other entity X first, then withdraw it and assign it to Guernsey,
which could no longer have region subtag GG because it was already
permanently assigned in the registry to entity X.  This chain of events
seems too unlikely to worry about.)

The alternative is that we *don't* add region subtag 831, but either (a)
wait for the unrealistic scenario above, resulting in 831 after all, or
(b) wait for the MA to assign GG, resulting in GG.  In this scenario, we
might wait forever, and in the meantime it would be impossible to
indicate Guernsey in a language tag, except with a private-use subtag
(or a non-conformant extension).

I wasn't worried about this impossibility before, since the use of
English, Manx, etc. in these locations seems not to differ from other
locations.  However, I did a bit of checking, and can't figure out a way
to tag Dgèrnésiais (the Norman language of Guernsey) or Jèrriais (the
Norman language of Jersey).  There doesn't seem to be an ISO 639-1 or -2
code element (and therefore a language subtag) for Norman languages in
general, and definitely not for these two specifically.  ISO/DIS 639-3
has only a single code element "xno" for "Anglo-Norman," which may or
may not fit the description of either Dgèrnésiais or Jèrriais; but even
if it is, and even if RFC 3066ter includes "xno" as a language subtag,
there is no way to use it to differentiate between "Anglo-Norman used in
Guernsey" (i.e. Dgèrnésiais) and "Anglo-Norman used in Jersey" (i.e.
Jèrriais) unless region subtags exist for Guernsey and Jersey.

(Of course, ietf-languages could avoid this quagmire by petitioning ISO
639/RA to assign code elements for Dg. and J., or failing that,
registering them directly.)

So if we want to allow 831 and friends to be individually registrable,
cool, but let's not come back later and say, "Wait a minute!  We needed
831 as a safety net!  What were we thinking?"

> I propose adding one sentence to 3.3(11) to make it more consistent
> with 2.2.4 (3E):  "If the petition for a code assignment ISO 3166 is
> refused or not acted on in a timely manner, the Language Subtag
> Reviewer MAY procede with the registration using the UN M.49 code."
> Or words to that effect.

If we do this, the text in Section 2 (6) and Section 4 of
draft-initial-01 will remain unchanged in draft-02.  (It had been
proposed to change it to indicate that the subtags could not be
registered.)  So the decision on this question affects both
draft-registry and draft-initial.

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

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:44:33 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 4:05 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)
...
...

They'd still be a safety net - they'd only (in this case) be registerable
if the ISO 3166 code assignment request is refused or ignored. The decision
whether to accept the registration would still be subject to debate on the
[email-masked] list.  At least that was my thinking.

If UN M.49 changes 831's meaning to refer to something else, then there is
a problem with the whole idea of them being a safety net.  If a request for
an ISO 3166 code to match 831 is first refused, and then a couple years later
accepted, well, that's just FUBAR.  :-)

Randy

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:49:36 -0400

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> However, I did a bit of checking, and can't figure out a way

Quite right.  In fact, 'xno' is apparently meant for the now extinct
Norman French once spoken in England, and does not cover Dgèrnésiais
and Jèrriais at all.  Rather, the Ethnologue (and *a fortiori* ISO
639-3) considers them varieties of "fr", like all the *langues d'oïl*
except Walloon and Picard (probably because those two have some official
status in Belgium).

So either they need to be registered as variants, or the semi-official
GG and JE codes need to be made official by the ISO 3166/MA, or the
U.N. codes need to be used.

I think the second of these is the best option, but apparently BSI and
only BSI can press for it.  Is there any one here from BSI who is willing
to do so?

Since this affects current as well as future status, I have cross-posted
to [email-masked] and [email-masked].

-- 
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family	John Cowan
is that there ain't no definite answers		[email-masked]
to anything.  --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:12:07 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor, and only on the ltru-relevant aspects...

> From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Finishing off #1026 (Was: Re: status? last call?)
...
...

I agree the second option seems to make the most sense.

Both the second and, if the effort to get GG and JE made "official"
fails, the third options John offers would be consistent with my proposal
to add a sentence to 3.3(11) saying something like "If the petition for a
code assignment ISO 3166 is refused or not acted on in a timely
manner, the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY procede with the
registration using the UN M.49 code."

The third would not be permitted if we go with Doug's interpretation, and
would, in that case, require the use of the first option rather than offering
a choice.

Randy

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:07:26 -0700

I agree.

‎Mark

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:31:25 -0700

John dot Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth dot com> wrote:

> except Walloon and Picard (probably because those two have some
> official status in Belgium).

According to Wikipedia, "Dgèrnésiais is recognised (along with Jèrriais,
Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Manx and Scots (in Scotland and Northern
Ireland)) as a regional language by the British and Irish governments
within the framework of the British-Irish Council."

So if it is true that Walloon and Picard are encoded separately because
of their status in Belgium, BSI might consider that Dgèrnésiais and
Jèrriais should benefit in a similar way.