Subject: [Ltru] Re: UTF-8

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:28:26 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> The other possibility is to say whatever the sources say.  I didn't 
> note that you modified the source descriptions in some way.  Please 
> don't do this without a rule for it in 4646bis.

I didn't.

Having said that, I would really like the WG to come to a FORMAL 
decision, certified by a co-chair, on this whole Description thing.  We 
should not have text in 4646bis that talks about the Description field 
being non-normative, only for identification purposes, only to indicate 
the meaning of the subtag, able to be broadened, etc., and at the same 
time be required to keep the exact ISO-originated reference name, warts 
and ambiguity and weird acute accents and all.  I'm not sure I even care 
any more which path we choose, but we cannot have it both ways.

> If that's the case they should most definitely say so.  But I don't 
> see the point, just copy what the sources say as long as it's an 
> assigned code-point for a character.

Don't forget about variant subtags registered by ietf-languages.  Those 
don't have "sources" in the sense you're thinking of.

> Good that we didn't introduce an MES-1 restriction for 4646 :-)

We didn't add any restriction, and there was a reason for that.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:37:20 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> Capitalization doesn't mean anything in language tags and never has.
>
> Sure, I'm talking about a naive subtag to IDREF implementation for the 
> registry based on some MUSTard in chapter 3.1:
>
> | Subtags whose 'Type' field is 'script' (in other words,
> | subtags defined by ISO 15924) MUST use titlecase.

"yi-latn" is not a subtag, it's a redundant tag:  RFC 4645 section 2, 
point 7:

>  7.  Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that were not deprecated,
>      consisted entirely of subtags already in this document, and
>      have the correct form and format for tags defined by [RFC4646]
>      were converted to records of type "redundant" in the ILSR.
>      For example, "zh-Hant" is now defined by [RFC4646] because
>      'zh' is an [ISO639-1] code element and 'Hant' is an [ISO15924]
>      code element, and both are defined as subtags in the ILSR.

I guess the question is whether "yi-latn" does or does not have the 
"correct format," taking its capitalization into account.  I note that 
nobody objected to it during the rather long WG and IETF review periods.

>> We should fix it in the registry (via the reg process if possible, 
>> but certainly via 4645bis if not)
>
> Okay.

Whatever happened to "fidelity with the source standards at all costs"? 
The RFC 3066 tag registry is the source standard for redundant tags.