Subject: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:15:12 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> Remember that the criterion for including a Suppress-Script is that 
> the script is always used for the language except in a few highly 
> restricted domains, such as writing for the blind, scholarly 
> transliteration, transcription for use in another language, and when 
> the standard script is not available.

I wish we had that explanation somewhere in RFC 4646.  It's better than 
most of the explanations I've seen, certainly better than any I've 
written.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:52:08 -0700

I still think the text of RFC 4646 and structure leans strongly toward an 
assumption that all language is written. Increasingly web content features 
animated talking heads or video, and this content may need language 
tagging as well. 

Motion picture applications -- including television, broadcast, Digital 
Cinema, podcast, phonecast, multilingual electronic program guides, and 
local/national/university archives -- also require language tagging. The 
text of RFC 4646 indicates that the script can be omitted when it can be 
assumed. It doesn't mention that in an increasing number of cases, the 
assignment of a script tag is completely inappropriate.

Regards,

Karen Broome
Metadata Systems Designer
Sony Pictures Entertainment

"Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]> 
09/27/2006 10:15 AM

To
"LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
[Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:20:21 -0700

Karen Broome <Karen underscore Broome at spe dot sony dot com> wrote:

> I still think the text of RFC 4646 and structure leans strongly toward 
> an assumption that all language is written. Increasingly web content 
> features animated talking heads or video, and this content may need 
> language tagging as well.
>
> Motion picture applications -- including television, broadcast, 
> Digital Cinema, podcast, phonecast, multilingual electronic program 
> guides, and local/national/university archives -- also require 
> language tagging. The text of RFC 4646 indicates that the script can 
> be omitted when it can be assumed. It doesn't mention that in an 
> increasing number of cases, the assignment of a script tag is 
> completely inappropriate.

This was probably meant to be covered in the introduction to Section 
2.2.3, which says, "Script subtags are used to indicate the script or 
writing system variations that distinguish the written forms of a 
language or its dialects."

While this describes the use case, I agree with Karen that the "non-use" 
case is not adequately addressed.  As John Cowan observed on 
ietf-languages, some users may select subtags simply to "fill in the 
blanks" even when they add no distinguishing value.

Sections 2.2.3 and 4.1 seem like appropriate places to add this.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:48:59 +0900

Hello Karen,

As a technical contributor, I think you raise a very valid
point that should be documented clearly.

As a co-chair, I'd like to ask you to propose specific wording,
and a place to put it. This is the fastest way to move this
issue forward.

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:52 06/09/28, [email-masked] wrote:

>I still think the text of RFC 4646 and structure leans strongly toward an assumption that all language is written. Increasingly web content features animated talking heads or video, and this content may need language tagging as well. 
>
>Motion picture applications -- including television, broadcast, Digital Cinema, podcast, phonecast, multilingual electronic program guides, and local/national/university archives -- also require language tagging. The text of RFC 4646 indicates that the script can be omitted when it can be assumed. It doesn't mention that in an increasing number of cases, the assignment of a script tag is completely inappropriate. 
>
>Regards, 
>
>Karen Broome 

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:33:15 +0900

+1 to Doug's proposal to include John's text into 4646bis.

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:15 06/09/28, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> Remember that the criterion for including a Supprest
just be tagged as Hangul, in the same way as e.g. a Latin text with an
occasional Greek or other character would still be tagged as Latin.
For the later example, the question is whether something similar to
    Subtag: Jpan
    Description: Japanese (alias for Han + Hiragana + Katakana)
should be defined for the Korean case. The problem is that while
conventions for what to write with Kanji, Hiragana, and Katakana in
modern Japanese are quite well established, the practice is quite
a bit more varying in Korean, the way I understand it.

Speaking about Japanese, I'm quite surprised that we don't have
    Supress-script: Jpan
at
    Type: language
    Subtag: ja
    Description: Japanese
    Added: 2005-10-16
When something is tagged ja, the assumption is that it's written in
Kanji-Kana mixture, because that's how Japanese is written. Not having
a Suppress-script would mean that strictly speaking, ja-Jpan should be
used, which nobody does and would be silly anyway.

>One important fact to keep in mind is that Suppress-Script values may be not only added, but also removed (Section 3.4, item 7).  If we make a mistake, we can go back and fix it.

Oh, at least one thing that we can fix. We should definitely
leave it that way.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:33:15 +0900

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:15 06/09/28, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> Remember that the criterion for including a Suppress-Script is that the script is always used for the language except in a few highly restricted domains, such as writing for the blind, scholarly transliteration, transcription for use in another language, and when the standard script is not available.
>
>I wish we had that explanation somewhere in RFC 4646.  It's better than most of the explanations I've seen, certainly better than any I've written.
>
>--

s-Script is that the script is always used for the language except in a few highly restricted domains, such as writing for the blind, scholarly transliteration, transcription for use in another language, and when the standard script is not available.
>
>I wish we had that explanation somewhere in RFC 4646.  It's better than most of the explanations I've seen, certainly better than any I've written.
>
>--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:15:16 -0700

Changes to clarify use of script tags and RFC 4646bis with spoken 
language:

-Section 1-

  "In addition, knowledge about the particular language used by some
  piece of information content might be useful or even required by some
  types of processing; for example, spell-checking, computer-
  synthesized speech, Braille transcription, or high-quality print
  renderings."

ADD after previous paragraph?

It is important to note that the language identification needs described 
above apply not only to written language, but also to spoken language such 
that found in videos, audio files, songs, podcasts, films, and written 
interfaces used to access or classify such content.

-Section 2.2.3-

Changes:

2.  <ADD>When applicable,</ADD> script subtags MUST immediately follow the 
primary language subtag and all extended language subtags and MUST occur 
before any other type of subtag described below.

ADD:

   6.  Script subtags MUST NOT be used to identify language that is spoken 
or sung. Script                   tags and Suppress-Script fields are not 
applicable to such content.

-Section 4.1-

2.  ...

*  For example, the subtag 'Latn' should not be used with the primary 
language 'en' because nearly all English documents are written in the 
Latin script and it adds no distinguishing
information.  However, if a document were written in English mixing Latin 
script with another script such as Braille ('Brai'), then it might be 
appropriate to choose to indicate
both scripts to aid in content selection, such as the application of a 
style sheet. <ADD> On the other hand, the subtags 'Hant' and 'Hans' should 
not be used to describe an audiovisual asset in Chinese unless the 
language appears in written subtitles or captions.</ADD>

I'm still checking to see if there are any other opportunities for 
clarification.

Regards,

Karen Broome
310.244.4384

Martin Duerst <[email-masked]> 
09/27/2006 06:48 PM

To
[email-masked], "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>, "LTRU 
Working Group" <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

Hello Karen,

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked] [email-masked] Fri Sep 29 19:16:51 2006
To: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1
From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:15:16 -0700
Cc: Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>, LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]>

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

Changes to clarify use of script tags and RFC 4646bis with spoken 
language:

-Section 1-

  "In addition, knowledge about the particular language used by some
  piece of information content might be useful or even required by some
  types of processing; for example, spell-checking, computer-
  synthesized speech, Braille transcription, or high-quality print
  renderings."

ADD after previous paragraph?

It is important to note that the language identifioyama.ac.jp

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:02:18 -0700

I'm mostly in agreement with the changes, but the following goes too far:

Nowhere else do we say that "X cannot be used to identify Y", and with good
reason. We  are in the business of providing a clear mechanism for
representing identifiers for languages, but we are *not* in the business of
policing which content gets tagged with which tags. There are also too many
edge cases. If I tagged a multimedia document with zh-Hant and the document
happened to contain a snipped of spoken Chinese -- or for that matter,
spoken English -- I would not be compliant to BCP 47!

If you change that to the following, it would be better.

Script subtags not applicable to language that that is not written in
characters (for example, spoken or sung). Language tags used to identify
such content should not contain script tags.

Mark

On 9/29/06, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> language 'en' because nearly all English documents are written in the Latin
> script and it adds no distinguishing
> not be used to describe an audiovisual asset in Chinese unless the language
> appears in written subtitles or captions.</ADD>
>
>
>  *Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>*
>
> 09/27/2006 06:48 PM
>   To
> Working Group" <[email-masked]>  cc
>
>  Subject
> animated talking heads or video, and this content may need language tagging
> as well.
> >
> >http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ <http://users.adelphia.net/%7Edewell/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:19:49 -0700

Hmm.... I can tell you that I have had to make this a hard, fast -- if 
behind-the-scenes -- rule in my industry. 

Just in terms of feature films: When there is one application language 
list serving original production language as well as dubbed and subtitled 
versions, the dubbed content is inevitably either marked "Traditional 
Mandarin Chinese" or "Simplified Mandarin Chinese"  -- or subtitles are 
classified as "Mandarin" or "Chinese," which is useless when trying to 
find the right version to ship to a particular region. It's bad data. 

I think that's how I landed in LTRU in the first place: I illustrated a 
need in my industry to maintain two unique language lists in applications 
or products that deal with both types of language. This is somewhat of a 
usability issue more than an identification issue, but I don't want to see 
a list that looks like

Language:

Chinese (Mandarin)
Chinese (Mandarin, Simplified)
Chinese (Mandarin, Traditional)

That results in junk data when used by the average classifier of original, 
dubbed, or subtitled content because the categories are not mutually 
exclusive. I want to see two unique lists in a UI:

Spoken Language:

        Chinese (Mandarin) = zh-cmn

Written Language

        Chinese (Mandarin, Simplified) = zh-cmn-Hans
        Chinese (Mandarin, Traditional) = zh-cmn-Hant

If we had a film that had an original language of Cantonese with subtitles 
in Mandarin with simplified orthography, we would identify both "zh-yue" 
as a spoken language (type = original) and the "zh-cmn-Hans" written 
language (type = subtitles). In the case you mention, we would identify 
all written and spoken variants in the multimedia document -- a video in a 
web page could have a different tag than the page itself. DVDs can feature 
several subtitle and dubbing options on the same disk. The distinction 
between written and spoken languages is common in most standards that deal 
with audiovisual content, and it's assumed that many works will have more 
than one language code assigned.

Would you be any more comfortable with a "should not"? Your text to me 
seems to again define spoken language as the edge case -- language that is 
not written in characters. It's not written at all! I'd rather come 
straight out and acknowledge that in reality most language is spoken -- 
and increasingly technology allows that spoken language to be captured -- 
over a watered-down mention of spoken language as a "for example" in 
parentheses. 

Regards,

Karen Broome

"Mark Davis" <[email-masked]> 
09/29/2006 06:02 PM

To
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc
Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>, LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

Nowhere else do we say that "X cannot be used to identify Y", and with 
good reason. We  are in the business of providing a clear mechanism for 
representing identifiers for languages, but we are *not* in the business 
of policing which content gets tagged with which tags. There are also too 
many edge cases. If I tagged a multimedia document with zh-Hant and the 
document happened to contain a snipped of spoken Chinese -- or for that 
matter, spoken English -- I would not be compliant to BCP 47! 

Mark

-Section 1- 

-Section 2.2.3- 

Changes: 

ADD: 

-Section 4.1- 

2.  ...

Regards, 

Karen Broome

To

Subject

Hello Karen,

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:18:02 -0700

I suppose if we had multimedia content, like a children's song being 
sung with the lyrics subtitled (possibly with a bouncing ball), then a 
written component would be involved and script might be relevant.

I agree that we should not make it look as though written content is the 
norm and non-written content is some kind of weird fringe exception.  We 
should be able to have all our existing statements about script subtag 
usage, and also state that they are inappropriate for non-written 
content.  In particular, Karen's proposed addition of "When applicable" 
to Section 2.2.3 is subtle but gets the point across.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mark Davis
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Martin Duerst ; Doug Ewell ; LTRU Working Group
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 18:02
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

I'm mostly in agreement with the changes, but the following goes too 
far:

   6.  Script subtags MUST NOT be used to identify language that is 
spoken or sung. Script                   tags and Suppress-Script fields 
are not applicable to such content.

Nowhere else do we say that "X cannot be used to identify Y", and with 
good reason. We  are in the business of providing a clear mechanism for 
representing identifiers for languages, but we are *not* in the business 
of policing which content gets tagged with which tags. There are also 
too many edge cases. If I tagged a multimedia document with zh-Hant and 
the document happened to contain a snipped of spoken Chinese -- or for 
that matter, spoken English -- I would not be compliant to BCP 47!

Mark

-Section 1-

It is important to note that the language identification needs described 
above apply not only to written language, but also to spoken language 
such that found in videos, audio files, songs, podcasts, films, and 
written interfaces used to access or classify such content.

-Section 2.2.3-

Changes:

2.  <ADD>When applicable,</ADD> script subtags MUST immediately follow 
the primary language subtag and all extended language subtags and MUST 
occur before any other type of subtag described below.

ADD:

   6.  Script subtags MUST NOT be used to identify language that is 
spoken or sung. Script                   tags and Suppress-Script fields 
are not applicable to such content.

-Section 4.1-

2.  ...

*  For example, the subtag 'Latn' should not be used with the primary 
language 'en' because nearly all English documents are written in the 
Latin script and it adds no distinguishing
information.  However, if a document were written in English mixing 
Latin script with another script such as Braille ('Brai'), then it might 
be appropriate to choose to indicate
both scripts to aid in content selection, such as the application of a 
style sheet. <ADD> On the other hand, the subtags 'Hant' and 'Hans' 
should not be used to describe an audiovisual asset in Chinese unless 
the language appears in written subtitles or captions.</ADD>

Regards,

Karen Broome

Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
09/27/2006 06:48 PM [email-masked], "Doug Ewell" 
<[email-masked]>, "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
cc

SubjectRe: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

Hello Karen,

Regards,    Martin.

At 02:52 06/09/28, [email-masked] wrote:

>local/national/university archives -- also require language tagging. 
>The text of RFC 4646 indicates that the script can be omitted when it 
>can be assumed. It doesn't mention that in an increasing number of 
>cases, the assignment of a script tag is completely inappropriate.
>
>Regards,
>
>Karen Broome

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto: 
[email-masked]

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:41:18 +0900

Just a very small editorial fix, otherwise +1:

At 10:02 06/09/30, Mark Davis wrote:
>   6.  Script subtags MUST NOT be used to identify language that is spoken or sung. Script                   tags and Suppress-Script fields are not applicable to such content.

>Script subtags not applicable to language that that is not written in characters (for example, spoken or sung). Language tags used to identify such content should not contain script tags.

Please change:
   Script subtags not applicable to language that that is not written
   in characters (for example, spoken or sung).
to:
   Script subtags are not applicable to language that that is not
   written in characters (for example, spoken or sung).

Maybe even better:
   Script subtags are not applicable, and therefore preferably are left out,
   for content that does not use any script, for example because it is
   spoken or sung.

This does two things:
- Says explicitly that if a script tag isn't applicable, don't use it in
  the tag.
- Makes the text somewhat more independent of the description of 'script'.
  (As an example, if ever we would get into the situation that sign language
  is recognized as a 'script', but there are not characters for it.)
  Not a main point, but just to be on the safe side.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:43:52 +0900

In general +1, except for Mark's correction and a small
editorial correction below.

At 08:15 06/09/30, [email-masked] wrote:

>It is important to note that the language identification needs described above apply not only to written language, but also to spoken language such that found in videos, audio files, songs, podcasts, films, and written interfaces used to access or classify such content. 

Please change "such that found" to "such as found".

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:43:52 +0900

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:10:38 +0200

Martin Duerst wrote:
 
> Maybe even better:
>    Script subtags are not applicable, and therefore
>    preferably are left out, for content that does not
>    use any script, for example because it is
>    spoken or sung.
 
> This does two things:
> - Says explicitly that if a script tag isn't applicable,
>   don't use it in the tag.
> - Makes the text somewhat more independent of the description
>   of 'script'. (As an example, if ever we would get into the
>   situation that sign language is recognized as a 'script',
>   but there are not characters for it.)

The "preferably are" is a near miss wrt
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AWW>
How about s/preferably are/SHOULD be/ ?

Frank

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:44:11 -0700

>   written in characters (for example, spoken or sung).

At the very least, remove "that that".

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:13:19 -0700

I like the "maybe even better" option the best. But again, the 
"preferably" irks me a bit. Is there any case where it is appropriate to 
use a script with spoken language?

Regards,

Karen Broome

09/30/2006 12:41 AM

To
"Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]>
cc
Doug Ewell <[email-masked]>, LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [Ltru] Re: Suppress-Script batch 1

Please change:

Maybe even better:
   Script subtags are not applicable, and therefore preferably are left 
out,
   for content that does not use any script, for example because it is
   spoken or sung.

This does two things:
  (As an example, if ever we would get into the situation that sign 
language

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:23:44 -0700

I had no intention to denegrate spoken language -- I use it myself. I think
my wording was a bit clumsy but the goal is simply to indicate that when
language is not written, the script is not necessary; when language is
written, it may be necessary. There are many ways of being "not written",
and one shouldn't try to enumerate all of them (spoken, sung, signed,...),
but instead capture them under the term "not written" and provide examples.

Martin's language avoids that but is starting to approach the tautology: =>
don't use scripts when they aren't necessary => don't use X when X is not
necessary.

Mark

On 9/29/06, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> classified as "Mandarin" or "Chinese," which is useless when trying to find
> the right version to ship to a particular region. It's bad data.
>
> need in my industry to maintain two unique language lists in applications or
> products that deal with both types of language. This is somewhat of a
> usability issue more than an identification issue, but I don't want to see a
> list that looks like
>
> Language:
>
> Chinese (Mandarin)
> in Mandarin with simplified orthography, we would identify both "zh-yue" as
> a spoken language (type = original) and the "zh-cmn-Hans" written language
> (type = subtitles). In the case you mention, we would identify all written
> and spoken variants in the multimedia document -- a video in a web page
> could have a different tag than the page itself. DVDs can feature several
> subtitle and dubbing options on the same disk. The distinction between
> written and spoken languages is common in most standards that deal with
> audiovisual content, and it's assumed that many works will have more than
> one language code assigned.
>
> not written in characters. It's not written at all! I'd rather come straight
> out and acknowledge that in reality most language is spoken -- and
> increasingly technology allows that spoken language to be captured -- over a
> watered-down mention of spoken language as a "for example" in parentheses.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karen Broome
>  *"Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>*
>
> 09/29/2006 06:02 PM
>   To
> "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>  cc
> On 9/29/06, [email-masked]* <[email-masked]> <*
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>   *Martin Duerst <[email-masked]* <[email-masked]>*>*
>
> 09/27/2006 06:48 PM
>
>   To
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>, "Doug Ewell" <*
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>>, "LTRU Working Group" <*
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>>  cc
>
>  Subject
> At 02:52 06/09/28, [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>wrote:
>
> >"Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]* <[email-masked]>>
> >
> >09/27/2006 10:15 AM
> >To
> >"LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]* <[email-masked]>>
> >cc
> >Subject
> >*http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/*<http://users.adelphia.net/%7Edewell/>
> >*http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html*<http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html>
> >*http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages*<http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>
> >
> >
> >[email-masked]* <[email-masked]>
> >*https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru*<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>
> >
> >
> >[email-masked]* <[email-masked]>
> >*https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru*<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>
>
>
> #-#-#  *http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp* <http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp/>
>     mailto:* [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>
>
>
> Ltru mailing list*
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>*
> **https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru*<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>
>
>
>
> Ltru mailing list*
> [email-masked]* <[email-masked]>*
> **https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru*<https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>
>
>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:41:22 -0700

Mark Davis wrote:

> Martin's language avoids that but is starting to approach the 
> tautology: => don't use scripts when they aren't necessary => don't 
> use X when X is not necessary.

I think that tautology is entirely appropriate.  It's consistent with 
what we've been saying all along.  Don't use script subtags when they 
aren't necessary; don't use region subtags when they aren't necessary; 
tag content wisely.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:36 -0700

"X is not necessary when X is not necessary" is never worth adding to a
document, no matter what the X is.

Mark

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:46:43 -0700

Mark Davis wrote:

> "X is not necessary when X is not necessary" is never worth adding to 
> a document, no matter what the X is.

We are talking about "Don't use X when X is not necessary," which is not 
the same thing.  There are many situations, in computer applications and 
real life, when it is perfectly OK to do something that is not strictly 
necessary.  Sometimes it is even preferable for some security or 
verification reason.

In the C or C++ or C# programming languages, I can write:

if (x == 0)
{
    do_something();
}
else
{
    do_something_else();
}

or I can write the same thing without the curly braces.  There are 
certain reasons (stylistic or maintenance) why the version with 
"unnecessary" braces might be preferable.

I don't see any harm in pointing out that script (and region) subtags do 
not fall into this category.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:51:40 -0400

> document, no matter what the X is.

It's like those signs "UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL FORBIDDEN", which boil
down to "People who are not authorized to be here are not authorized
to be here."  Yet such signs are useful.

In this case, the message is "Don't *use* unnecessary subtags --
they are not harmless."

-- 
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun"       [email-masked]

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:52:38 -0700

We are arguing about angels on the head of a pin. I'm saying, it is MORE
informative to say

Don't use script subtags when they are not necessary or inappropriate, such
as for non-written content. Such content may include spoken or sung
language.

than it is to say.

Don't use script subtags when they are not necessary.

Mark

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:33:16 -0700

Mark Davis wrote:

> We are arguing about angels on the head of a pin. I'm saying, it is 
> MORE informative to say
>
> Don't use script subtags when they are not necessary or inappropriate, 
> such as for non-written content. Such content may include spoken or 
> sung language.
>
> than it is to say.
>

I'm fine with this, and in particular with the de-parenthesizing of the 
"spoken and sung" part.