Subject: Re: [Ltru] To invert or not to invert?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:20:25 -0800

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Yes! You (LTRU) really must read the standard and use a Reference Name 
> (Description).

I know that ISO 639-3 has a Reference Name.  That doesn't require RFC 
4646 and the Registry to employ the same concept, although for some 
purposes it would be useful.

> As to inverted or non-inverted. Have both.  But mirror the ISO 639-3 
> file other than when there is a perceived need for adding additional 
> inverted forms.

That requires a change to 4646bis.  I won't put "both" in the 4645bis 
Registry if 4646bis says I must not.

> BTW, IMHO there is a marked difference between "Church Slavonic" and 
> "Old Church Slavonic"; two separate entities.

But ISO 639-3 calls them the same:

chu Slavonic Slavonic
chu Church Slavic Slavic, Church
chu Old Church Slavonic Slavonic, Old Church
chu Church Slavonic Slavonic, Church
chu Old Bulgarian Bulgarian, Old

BTW, if we add all of these forms including inversions, that will be 
*nine* Description fields for this one language.

--
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, 11 Dec 2006 15:05:54 -0000

Doug wrote: 

> 4646 and the Registry to employ the same concept, although 
> for some purposes it would be useful.
> 
> That requires a change to 4646bis.  I won't put "both" in the 
> 4645bis Registry if 4646bis says I must not.

In which case... Update RFC4646bis... Unless...

> But ISO 639-3 calls them the same:

Yes, I know.

> *nine* Description fields for this one language.

Being a woman, it is my prerogative to change my mind, I believe. And... I
always like to look at the other side of the coin :-).  Do we really want to
replicate *everthing* that is in the ISO 639-3 data tables within the
Registry? (and by that I mean all 9 descriptions of Old Church Slavonic
etc.)  For what purpose?  Would it be better for the Registry to be used in
conjunction with the standardized data?  Why re-invent the wheel? Just
direct people to the ISO 639-3 data tables, the alpha3 does the rest (that
is the whole purpose of it, I believe).  By making decisions wrt what to
include and what not to include LTRU could be "tying the hands" of future
generations.  How silly would that be?  Reference the standardised tables
and let the end user decide.  Add the following text to RFC4646bis to the
effect that "applications MAY wish to include/use additional descriptions
for a sub tag, in inverted or un-inverted forms, as per the underlying ISO
639-3 data tables".

Just a wild thought :-)

Best

Debbie
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  
> UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/