Subject: [Ltru] Re: Process for creating 4646bis Registry

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:56:00 -0700

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

>> The Preferred-Values for the others are explicitly listed to show how 
>> the tags were mapped.  The judgment of the WG is involved, although I 
>> think in these cases it will be unassailable.  In the case of 
>> "zh-min" the judgment of the WG is that (a) the tag is deprecated 
>> because it doesn't refer to a real language and (b) there is no 
>> Preferred-Value because no alternative tagging possibility exists for 
>> this non-language.
>
> Yes, and that has to be noted for readers of 4645bis, they've no clue 
> how that happened, because it's not obviously triggered by the 639-3 
> input.

OK, I will add this.

> [yi-latn]
>> Case is not significant in RFC { 1766, 3066, 4646, 4646bis } language 
>> tags.  There happen to be conventions for casing, and the Registry 
>> uses those conventions, but they are not normative.
>
> In another message I've quoted MUSTard, but admittedly that was about 
> Script records, not directly for all script subtags elsewhere.

I found the passage in RFC 4646 to which you might have been referring, 
in Section 3.1 (which I swear is longer by itself than some RFCs):

"The 'Subtag' or 'Tag' field MUST use lowercase letters to form the 
subtag or tag, with two exceptions.  Subtags whose 'Type' field is 
'script' (in other words, subtags defined by ISO 15924) MUST use 
titlecase.  Subtags whose 'Type' field is 'region' (in other words, 
subtags defined by ISO 3166) MUST use uppercase.  These exceptions 
mirror the use of case in the underlying standards."

This actually says that all "Tag" fields in the Registry, meaning 
grandfathered and redundant tags, must be all-lowercase.  Since 
grandfathered and redundant tags are atomic, and not composed of subtags 
(though redundant tags are equivalent to a sequence of valid subtags), 
this means "yi-latn" is one of the few redundant tags to be cased 
correctly!

Seriously, I think this passage is in error with respect to "tags" and 
needs to be modified to say that redundant tags are either:

(a) cased as they were in the RFC 3066 registry (what I did), or
(b) cased as if they were composed of individual subtags, using the 
casing conventions for those subtags (what you want).

> The museum survives it if one yi-latn is fixed to yi-Latn. :-)

s/The museum survives it/The floodgates open/

But if the wording in Section 3.1 is changed to option (b) above, I'll 
be happy to make this change for you.

--
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: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:55:48 -0700

> be happy to make this change for you.

Section 3.1 will be changed to reflect (b), as I believe this was an 
oversight.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:56:19 +0200

Addison Phillips wrote:

>> if the wording in Section 3.1 is changed to option (b)
>> above, I'll be happy to make this change for you.

Thanks - doing it individually as modification request on the
language list would be a PITA, I'd have to summarize the thread
here for what is in essence an irrelevant nit - unless somebody
tries weird registry conversions to XML IDs.

> Section 3.1 will be changed to reflect (b), as I believe this
> was an oversight.

ACK.  And please do also something about Doug's observation:

| 3.1 (which I swear is longer by itself than some RFCs)

One point where you could start a 3.1.1 subsection is the
statement "Each record MAY also contain the following fields".

Maybe you have that already, I look into the 9-11 I-D, not
your editor's copy.
 
Frank

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:18:52 -0700

> Maybe you have that already, I look into the 9-11 I-D, not

I did the former, but haven't split 3.1 yet. Putting a new <section> tag 
around some paragraphs is not very hard, but I'm not entirely sure I 
agree with doing a split of that section until I try it.

Addison

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:43:08 +0200

Addison Phillips wrote:
 
> Putting a new <section> tag around some paragraphs is not
> very hard

It needs a nice title, e.g. "Optional fields".  

> I'm not entirely sure I agree with doing a split of that
> section until I try it.

Extract from the USEFOR-09 ToC (excl. its <h4> sub-sections):

|  3.  News Header Fields 
|    3.1.  Mandatory Header Fields
|    3.2.  Optional Header Fields
|    3.3.  Obsolete Header Fields

Frank

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:02:06 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> Seriously, I think this passage is in error with respect to "tags" 
>> and needs to be modified to say that redundant tags are either:
>> ...

I will specifically mention this in 4645bis, since otherwise it would be 
a "silent change."