Subject: RE: [Ltru] Tagging of silent films (was: Re: el truth?)

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:38:29 -0700

Doug Ewell wrote:

> so would "qsi"

The use of private use codes from ISO 639 would indeed be a good choice, especially if one wishes to use a language subtag generatively with other subtags--or wishes to use an extension. They are guaranteed not to conflict with any other values and appear in the normal "language" location--and these codes were included in the registry for precisely this purpose.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:01:04 +0200

--On mandag, september 26, 2005 22:38:29 -0700 Addison Phillips 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> so would "qsi"
>
> The use of private use codes from ISO 639 would indeed be a good choice,
> especially if one wishes to use a language subtag generatively with other
> subtags--or wishes to use an extension. They are guaranteed not to
> conflict with any other values and appear in the normal "language"
> location--and these codes were included in the registry for precisely
> this purpose.

However, they ARE guaranteed to conflict with other private use of those 
codes.

Don't standardize private-use codes - not even in an "industry-wide 
agreement". It hurts.

i-silent is no longer available for public registration, methinks.

und-silent would be a valid code, if "silent" is registered as a variant 
subtag with "und" as its prefix.

                       Harald

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:25:39 -0400

> Don't standardize private-use codes - not even in an "industry-wide 

I think that use of private tags by a group is precisely what they are
for.  If private tags can't even be used by private agreement (between
film people), they are useless.

> i-silent is no longer available for public registration, methinks.

Technically it still is, since we are in the RFC 3066 regime.  In the
RFC 3066bis regime, the equivalent would be simply "silent", a non-639
language subtag.

> subtag with "und" as its prefix.

Yes, that is registerable in both regimes.  It's a little paradoxical, though,
since "und" represents ignorance on the part of the tagger, to qualify
ignorance with something specific.  OTOH, people in silent films are
generally speaking in some language, but viewers don't know or care what it is.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  [email-masked]
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:53:13 +0200

> film people), they are useless.

That logically follows, of course - consider what happens when the film 
people adopt "qsi" for silent movies, the car people adopt "qsi" for a 
"test" voice on the car guidance system, and you insert a disk into the car 
entertainment system.....

Outside of use inside a single system/database, private tags are useless, 
IMHO.

> RFC 3066bis regime, the equivalent would be simply "silent", a non-639

I certainly wouldn't encourage creating more interim  registrations.....

> Yes, that is registerable in both regimes.  It's a little paradoxical,
> though, since "und" represents ignorance on the part of the tagger, to
> qualify ignorance with something specific.  OTOH, people in silent films
> are generally speaking in some language, but viewers don't know or care
> what it is.

I'm told that deaf people often laugh in the most bizarre spots when 
watching silent movies - they are used to lip-reading the dialogue :-)