Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suppress-script considered least harmful

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:32:56 -0700

Martin, I don't think there is any question that everyone agrees with the
goal of what you said.
But
a) *nothing* in 4646 "force[s] people to be unnecessarily detailled when
tagging".
b) And wouldn't, even if Suppress-Script didn't exist -- here is plenty of
text saying the opposite.
c) Do we have to add Suppress-Scripts to 7000 entries to achieve the goal? I
think not.

Mark

On 9/30/06, Martin Duerst < [email-masked]> wrote:
>
> At 06:39 06/09/30, John Cowan wrote:
>
> >I'm happy to keep Suppress-Script confined (as a matter of administrative
>
> >policy, not RFC 4646bis rule) to the languages of 639-1 and 639-2.
>
> As a technical contributor, I'd tend to disagree. There is no need
> to force people to be unnecessarily detailled when tagging. If it's
> widely accepted general practice that a language is written in a single
> script only, then just the language tag should do the job. Scripts,
> like regions, should only be added when they are really necessary.
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto: [email-masked]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 22:39:58 -0400

> like regions, should only be added when they are really necessary.

I agree with every word of this, but I don't see how it's relevant to
what I said.

I am merely saying that we have no need to do the necessary investigations
to create Suppress-Script: entries for the thousands of 639-3 entries,
none of which will be usable until RFC 4646bis gets an RFC number anyhow.
Suppress-Script: is a backward compatibility facility, and people who
use script information for the "new" languages inconsistently, IMHO,
deserve what they get.

-- 
Work hard,                                      John Cowan
play hard,                                      [email-masked]
die young,                                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
rot quickly.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:14:02 +0900

At 00:44 06/09/29, Mark Crispin wrote:

>So I assume that means that "karaoke" tagged as ja-Latn would be pronounced (somewhat like "kah-rah-oh-kay" to an English speaker), whereas "karaoke" tagged as "en" would be pronounced as "kerry-oh-key"?  :-)

Yes, assuming you have a very elaborate text-to-speach engine.
Not at all sure current products go that far.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  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: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:14:02 +0900

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:14:02 +0900

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:53:03 +0900

Are you saying that we should concentrate on getting Suppress-Script
information for languages in ISO 639-1/2 first?

Then I'd agree.

But as in RFC 4646, I would not like to make progress on RFC 4646bis
depenednt on any degree of Suppress-Script information.
(chair hat on: we don't want this to take longer than necessary!)

But the "keep confined" sounded as if you would forbid anybody to
do the necessary research and register a Suppress-Script for an
ISO 639-3 language.

I would definitely have to disagree with this.

Regards,     Martin.

se1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp
	id 0427_825a79ca_520f_11db_978f_0014221fa3c9;
	Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:14:09 +0900
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:53:03 +0900
To: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suppress-script considered least harmful
Cc: [email-masked]

Are you saying that we should concentrate on getting Suppress-Script
information for languages in ISO 639-1/2 first?

Then I'd agree.

But as in RFC 4646, I would not like to make progress on RFC 4646bis
depenednt on any degree of Suppress-Script information.
(chair hat on: we don't want this to take longer than necessary!)

But the "keep confined" sounded as if you would forbid anybody to
do the necessary research and register a Suppress-Script for an
ISO 639-3 language.

I would definitely have to disagree with this.

Regards,     Martin.

se1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp
	id 0427_825a79ca_520f_11db_978f_0014221fa3c9;
	Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:14:09 +0900
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:53:03 +0900
To: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suppress-script considered least harmful
Cc: [email-masked]

Are you saying that we should concentrate on getting Suppress-Script
information for languages in ISO 639-1/2 first?

Then I'd agree.

But as in RFC 4646, I would not like to make progress on RFC 4646bis
depenednt on any degree of Suppress-Script information.
(chair hat on: we don't want this to take longer than necessary!)

But the "keep confined" sounded as if you would forbid anybody to
do the necessary research and register a Suppress-Script for an
ISO 639-3 language.

I would definitely have to disagree with this.

Regards,     Martin.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:53:36 -0400

> information for languages in ISO 639-1/2 first?

Good.

> (chair hat on: we don't want this to take longer than necessary!)

By no means.

> do the necessary research and register a Suppress-Script for an

By no means.

-- 
In politics, obedience and support      John Cowan <[email-masked]>
are the same thing.  --Hannah Arendt    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:26:11 -0700

>> (chair hat on: we don't want this to take longer than necessary!)

I disagree vehemently:

1. I disagree that we should close off this issue. I think that 
consensus is not yet achieved. I think that a proper proposal for script 
information in the registry will likely crystallize a very different 
consensus than preserving Suppress-Script.

2. I disagree that Suppress-Script is least harmful. I think that 
Suppress-Script is VERY harmful, simply because it seems to beg 
registrants do (possibly extensive, or possibly sloppy) research in 
order to pester ietf-languages with a (potentially large) number of 
registration requests for what is, at best, informative material for 
which the list is not a good arbitration mechanism.

>> do the necessary research and register a Suppress-Script for an

I agree.

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:49:17 -0400

> consensus than preserving Suppress-Script.

Okay, propose something.  And if it turns out to be an Accept-Script
scheme, it had better be able to survive my scathing criticisms!  Or if
it turns out to be a Don't-Do-Anything scheme, you'd better figure out
a way to fend off the attacks of the IETF protocol weenies.

-- 
John Cowan     http://ccil.org/~cowan    [email-masked]
Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out.  He wasn't home.
Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us.  He no show up.  Wednesday he
go to the ball game, and we fool him.  We no show up.  Thursday was a
double-header.  Nobody show up.  Friday it rained all day.  There was no ball
game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio.  --Chicolini

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:20:50 +0900

At 06:49 06/10/03, John Cowan wrote:
>Okay, propose something.

[co-chair hat on]

Yes, please. For the moment, better in an independent mail than
directly in the draft. Given that this is in many ways a backwards-
incompatible change, starting with a problem statement that refers
to the language in the charter would be good.

Regards,    Martin.

>And if it turns out to be an Accept-Script

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked] [email-masked] Thu Oct 05 02:27:42 2006
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:20:50 +0900
To: John Cowan <[email-masked]>, Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suppress-script considered least harmful
Cc: [email-masked]

At 06:49 06/10/03, John Cowan wrote:
>Okay, propose something.

[co-chair hat on]

Yes, please. For the moment, better in an independent mail than
directly in the draft. Given that this is in many ways a backwards-
incompatible change, starting with a problem statement that refers
to the language in the charter would be good.

Regards,    Martin.

>And if it turns out to be an Accept-Script