Subject: [Ltru] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:50:02 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Language Tag Registry Update Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Tags for Identifying Languages
	Author(s)	: A. Phillips, M. Davis
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt
	Pages		: 64
	Date		: 2006-12-7
	
This document describes the structure, content, construction, and
   semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
   indicate the language used in an information object.  It also
   describes how to register values for use in language tags and the
   creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:13:10 +0100

On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 03:50:02PM -0500,
 [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote 

> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt

An ABNF production like:

privateuse    = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))

is redundant. Since every ABNF string is case-INsensitive, it would be
enough to write:

privateuse    = "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:36:54 +0100

>    o Tag or tags refers to a complete language tag, such as
>    "fr-Latn-CA".

Wouldn't it be better to enforce our own Suppress-script? "sr-Latn-RS"
or "az-Arab-IR" would be better examples.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:09:16 +0100

> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-01.txt

The draft seems inconsistent in its use of "well-formed" and
"regular". We find:

>   grandfathered = langtag   ; well-formed grandfathered tags
>                 / irregular ; tags that are not well-formed

(I would say that irregular is the opposite of regular, not of
well-formed.)

>  Those tags that would not be well-formed according to the ABNF in
>  this document or that contain subtags that do not individually
>  appear in the registry are maintained in the registry in records of
>  the "grandfathered" type.

(These tags are legal according to the ABNF, both of RFC 4646 and of
the new draft.)

>   Some grandfathered tags are "well-formed" in that they match the
>   'langtag' production in Figure 1.

And, a few lines later:

>   An implementation that claims to check for well-formed language tags
>   MUST:
>
>   o  Check that the tag and all of its subtags, including extension and
>      private use subtags, conform to the ABNF or that the tag is on the
>      list of grandfathered tags.

(The ABNF is sufficient since the "irregular" production is in it.)

Shouldn't we stick to a consistent vocabulary? I suggest to clearly
separate "regular" (complies with the "langtag" production of the
ABNF) and its superset "well-formed" (complies with the "Language-Tag" production,
plus the restriction on repeated extensions).

With this vocabulary:

fr-Arab-AQ is well-formed (and regular)

i-klingon is well-formed (and irregular)

i-toto is not well-formed 

art-lojban is well-formed (and regular)

uk-Cyrl-U is not well-formed

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:59:24 -0800

I agree that the language needs a bit of cleanup, but not quite what you
suggestion.

Well-formed means that it conforms to the ABNF for Language-Tag AND it
contains no two identical singleton extension tags.

We're using 'regular' to mean conforms to the ABNF for langtag or
privateuse, and 'irregular' to mean the reverse: doesn't conform to the ABNF
for langtag or privateuse. (Thus corresponding to the language tags that
must be syntactically grandfathered.)

Mark

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:16:51 +0100

> Wouldn't it be better to enforce our own Suppress-script?
> "sr-Latn-RS" or "az-Arab-IR" would be better examples.

+1  Let's have both, to improve the chance that readers can
identify at least one of the examples.

Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:27:32 -0500

Marcus Davis Stephano Bortzmeyero scripsit:

> suggest.

I think you two are in violent agreement.

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <[email-masked]>
                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:34:08 -0800

Even better....

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:50:02 -0800

Done...

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:17:03 -0800

Comments follow. Mostly I think I've fixed this in draft-02.

> I agree that the language needs a bit of cleanup, but not quite what you

I agree. "Well-formed" and "valid" have quite specific meaning. 
"Irregular" has the meaning Mark suggests.
>> (I would say that irregular is the opposite of regular, not of

Irregular grandfathered tags are well-formed by definition. They are 
irregular in terms of the langtag production. Changed the note to say:

'grandfathered tags that don't match langtag'

>> >      list of grandfathered tags.

Fixed.

Addison

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:18:52 +0100

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:09:16PM +0100,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]> wrote 

> The draft seems inconsistent in its use of "well-formed" and

This is not perfect yet in -02 which says:

   grandfathered = langtag   ; well-formed grandfathered tags
                 / irregular ; grandfathered that don't match langtag

The "well-formed" should be replaced by "regular".

Also, 2.2.8. "Grandfathered Registrations" says:

   Those tags that would not be well-formed
   according to the ABNF in this document or that contain subtags that
   do not individually appear in the registry are maintained in the
   registry in records of the "grandfathered" type.

This should be:

   Those tags that would not be regular
   according to the ABNF in this document or that contain subtags ...

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:37:00 -0800

> The "well-formed" should be replaced by "regular".

Except that "regular" doesn't really convey any information here. Yes, 
it is an antonym for 'irregular', but that doesn't really add 
information. I think we should just omit "well-formed".

>    registry in records of the "grandfathered" type.

I think we'd be better off not formally defining 'regular' vs. 
'irregular'. This can be done as follow:

--
Those tags that do not match the 'langtag' production in the ABNF in 
this document or that contain subtags that do not individually appear in 
the registry are maintained in the registry in records of the 
"grandfathered" type.
--

Best Regards,

Addison