Subject: [Ltru] Proofreading the Registry (was: Re: zh-hakka)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:52:55 -0700

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

> Automatically testing the registry to catch syntax errors or 
> inconsistencies is so obvious that I'm surprised it is not done yet 
> :-} It's the equivalent of integrity rules in DBMS.

I do have a program that does this, but it is a private hack that would 
need serious cleaning-up before I could distribute it and still sleep 
nights.

--
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: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:00:57 -0700

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

> Breaking it up "by type" is logical, but doesn't help much, most 
> records are languages.  We could remove the requirement to organize it 
> by type in 4646bis.  Then you'd be free to organize it alphabetically 
> [0..9A..Za..z] (case-sensitive).

I can't speak for anyone else, but it helps me quite a bit that the 
records are grouped by type.  I'd be opposed to changing this.  In fact, 
I'd want to go the other way, tighting up Section 5.1 to require subtags 
to be in alphabetical order, and further splitting the "language" 
subtags into 2-letter and 3-letter subgroups and putting "anp" and "frr" 
back in the 3-letter subgroup.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:25:41 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> it helps me quite a bit that the records are grouped by type.

For users who have no clue what is what a purely alphabetical
view could be interesting.  I don't care how it's sorted (of
course it must be type because 4646 says so).

> tighting up Section 5.1 to require subtags to be in
> alphabetical order, and further splitting the "language"
> subtags into 2-letter and 3-letter subgroups and putting
> "anp" and "frr" back in the 3-letter subgroup.

That's what I dubbed "input order" in another message.  We
would need four subgroups: two / three / four letters, and
five to eight letters.  The last two empty at the moment.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:51:04 -0400

> back in the 3-letter subgroup.

I'd be opposed to any more strictures on ordering; by its nature,
record-jar is supposed to carry all relevant information in the
tags and not "care" about the order of records.  A megabyte isn't
very big these days: there's no reason not to read it into a
data structure of your choice and sort it however you want.

-- 
John Cowan    [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
        Sound change operates regularly to produce irregularities;
        analogy operates irregularly to produce regularities.
                --E.H. Sturtevant, ca. 1945, probably at Yale

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:57:36 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> record-jar is supposed to carry all relevant information in the tags 
> and not "care" about the order of records.  A megabyte isn't very big 
> these days: there's no reason not to read it into a data structure of 
> your choice and sort it however you want.

It helps my eyeballs, not my programs.  I have to re-sort the Registry 
by description anyway when I build my cooked version.

I won't pursue this sorting issue, but I will put all the new 
639-3-based subtags in alpha order.