Subject: [Ltru] Re: Description field ordering

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:55:34 -0800

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> improved on 
Addison's proposed wording:

> For fields of type 'language' or 'extlang', the first 'Description' 
> field appearing in the Registry corresponds to the Reference Name 
> assigned by ISO 693-3. This helps facilitate cross-referencing between 
> ISO 639 and the registry.

I'm totally in favor of this, though of course we need to write "639-3" 
and not "693-3".

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

> Notice that this requires additional work on the part of the 
> LSR/Official Doug. But it doesn't give the first Description any 
> particularly special status.

I was already planning to do this, so no additional work for me.

> This suggests, please note, that we don't do uninversion or other 
> edits on that description (and, further, suggests that we don't do any 
> edits on descriptions whatsoever).

Correct as far as uninversion is concerned.  As for "any other edits" I 
would hope we could at least correct non-substantive editorial problems 
such as "two  spaces" if any existed.

Speaking of which, in starting to process the new 639-3 files I noticed 
the following line:

nds Low German German Low

which certainly should have the inverted form "German, Low" (with comma) 
instead, and:

whu WahauKayan Kayan, Wahau

which probably should have the uninverted form "Wahau Kayan" (with 
space) instead.

--
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: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:39:43 -0000

> Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> 
> improved on Addison's proposed wording:
> 
> > assigned by ISO 693-3. 

As you already know, I think this is the correct route to follow. However, I
think we should discuss Randy's (I think)suggestion of actually naming the
field "Reference Name".  What exactly would it take to update RFC4646bis to
do this?  And, why is it a perceived problem?  Be descriptive in field names
where possible as people will scan read the standard and miss the reference
to "Reference Names" within the text.

>This helps facilitate 
> cross-referencing between 

Hmmm... Where have I heard this before ;-)

Debbie

Debbie Garside
Managing Director
GeoLang Ltd
Corner House
Barn Street
Haverfordwest
Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
Wales UK

Tel: 0044 1437 766441
Web: http://www.geolang.com

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:52:32 -0800

The "perceived problem" is that current programs that read the file would
need to be updated before they would get the new field. Now, if we did
option 1a (see email Dec 15), that would still work, assuming that the
programs used the forward-compatibility strategy of skipping fields they
don't understand, but at the slight cost of duplicating information.

This it still would be simpler to just use the first Description.

Mark

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:50:50 -0000

Mark wrote:

This (1a) sounds a reasonable option to maintain backward compatibility
whilst introducing the "Reference Name" field (which will also be used in
ISO 639-5 and -6).  This would also facilitate the fact that preceding ISO
639 standards do not have Reference Names as such.  I like this idea.  I do
think Reference Name will become more important in the future - call it my
crystal ball if you will.  As the cost to the Registry is not great, put it
in is my advice.  One thought further, those applications that require a
"Description" rather than a "Reference Name" could glean it from the
Registry even if there were only one "Reference name" field, just a quick
replace query on the field name if Description is empty/missing would do it
so I don't see a major problem.

I still think the concept of Reference Name as first Description may be
missed by the end user but then if they don't read the standard properly I
suppose that is their problem. 
 
Debbie 

Mark

Debbie

Debbie Garside
Managing Director
GeoLang Ltd
Corner House
Barn Street 
Haverfordwest
Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
Wales UK

Tel: 0044 1437 766441