Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: give ABNF for Prefix (gen-art #15)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:38:01 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Kent Karlsson

> > For example, the 'Prefix' for the variant 'nedis' is "sl", meaning
that
> > the tags "sl-nedis" and "sl-IT-nedis" might be appropriate choices
while
> > the tag "is-nedis" is not.
> > --
> 
> It seems to me that this sentence conflates two issues:
> 1. Whether a tag is correctly formed or not (not just syntactically).
> 2. Whether a tag is appropriate for some particular data.
> 
> Concentrating on the first issue, maybe the sentence should read
> (less confusingly):
> ---
> For example, the 'Prefix' for the variant 'nedis' is "sl", meaning
that
> the tags "sl-nedis" and "sl-IT-nedis" are correctly formed tags while
> the tag "is-nedis" is not.

This would make this a syntactic constraint. I'm not sure that's what's
intended. 

Note that for extlang, the draft states that the specified prefix MUST
be used. Thus, if "cmn" has a specified prefix "zh", then "fr-cmn" is
not correctly formed. In contrast, the draft states that the specified
prefixes for a variant are those that would be suitable. It does not
suggest that "is-nedis" is ill-formed; it just suggests that it's not
semantically a good choice (similar to th-MX not being a good choice).

So, this boils down to whether we want prefixes for variants to be
constraints on syntactic well-formedness, or rather to be
recommendations on appropriate semantic collocation. I vaguely recall
that we discussed this and chose the latter.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:58:57 -0700

> that we discussed this and chose the latter.

I agree; it was definitely a recommendation for appropriate semantics, 
not a syntactic restriction.

Mark