Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Reserving subtags

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:19:47 -0700

I wrote:

> Then we should not have written Section 3.4, item 10.C, and Section 
> 3.6, bullet point 2, if we did not feel they would be necessary and 
> did intend to honor them in the event they were.

Recte: ... if we did *not* intend to honor them...

--
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: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:08:44 -0700

The position of the elements in the language tag is very important. We
discussed long and hard about the need for the script subtag to go before
the region subtag, and established that for very good reasons. It is not a
trivial matter. And the same goes for major orthographic differences.

That being said, I have a possible solution, one that does not change
well-formedness.

We add the ability to registry orthographic subtags in the range Qaba..Qabx.
(This is a perfectly legitimate thing for us to do.) The text would state
that such registration is limited, and is only for major orthographic
differences in languages that are not associated with any particular
country. We would only have a small number of these, so we'd have to use
them wisely; we'd need to use variants on top of those to express
differences within those othographic subtags, but they would not

Example: We could then register Qabp as a code for Phonetic Transcriptions,
and could then have:

en-Qabp-US-FONIPA, and
en-Qabp-US-FONUPA

While not perfect, this might be a way out, one that doesn't leave us with a
broken system for major orthographies, and also doesn't disturb
well-formedness.

Mark

On 3/11/07, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ <http://users.adelphia.net/%7Edewell/>

-- 
Mark

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:02:51 +0100

Mark Davis wrote:
 
> We add the ability to registry orthographic subtags in the range
> Qaba..Qabx. (This is a perfectly legitimate thing for us to do.)

My copy of the subtag registry contains...

%%
Type: script
Subtag: Qaaa..Qabx
Description: PRIVATE USE
Added: 2005-10-16
%%

...reserving these codes for private use.  In other words there 
can be 4646 tags using these codes, the property "private use" is
stable forever.  Please drop this plan:

 [4646 ch. 2.2.3 point 3]
| The script subtags 'Qaaa' through 'Qabx' are reserved for private
| use in language tags.  These subtags correspond to codes reserved
| by ISO 15924 for private use.  These codes MAY be used for non-
| registered script values.  Please refer to Section 4.5 for more
| information on private use subtags.

 [4646 ch. 4.5]
| Private use subtags have no meaning outside the private agreement
| between the parties that intend to use or exchange language tags
| that employ them.  The same  subtags MAY be used with a different
| meaning under a separate private agreement.
[...]
| Private use subtags are simply useless for information exchange
| without prior arrangement.  The value and semantic meaning of
| private use tags and of the subtags used within such a language
| tag are not defined by this document.

It's totally illegitimate for us to change this.  Even 15924 can't
change the RFC 4646 registration of Qaaa .. Qabx.  Stable forever.

Frank

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:10:47 -0700

+1

I think that suggesting the coöpted use of Zxxx is preferable.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:23 +0100

> I think that suggesting the coöpted use of Zxxx is preferable.

Doug + Marion said "not as is", Peter said "they could allow to
use it for 'non-written' in addition to 'has no script'".  Did
anybody submit (or whatever the proper ISO terminology is) a
Zxxx modification request ?

Karen said she doesn't need any 'non-written' pseudo-script, it
is IMO unnecessary that 4646bis tries to explain what Zxxx is,
let alone inventing its own peculiar interpretation.

Frank

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:38:54 -0700

>> I think that suggesting the coöpted use of Zxxx is preferable.

Note the use of "preferable" to "desirable" or "necessary".

> let alone inventing its own peculiar interpretation.

Yes, but Mark has stated several times that he (and presumably some 
other folks forming his "we") needs it.

Personally, I would recommend against using the subtag and am not sure 
what Mark's use case consists of and whether I would agree with it. 
However, as long as it does no harm, I don't see how some additional 
MAYs in the text would be so awful.

Addison

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:56:53 +0100

> Note the use of "preferable" to "desirable" or "necessary".

Noted now... :-)

> Yes, but Mark has stated several times that he (and presumably
> some other folks forming his "we") needs it.

I thought it was a kind of pluralis majestatis "we, the industry"
in support of Karen.

> as long as it does no harm, I don't see how some additional MAYs
> in the text would be so awful.

If 15924 would adopt Peter's broader interpretation it's okay, but
without it Doug's + Marion's WySiWyG interpretations were convincing.

If you add a SHOULD NOT for script subtags and non-written content,
you've to mention Zxxx as an exception anyway, that would be also a
good place for further Zxxx (ab)uses.

Frank

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:51:02 -0700

> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Note the use of "preferable" to "desirable" or "necessary".

I noticed. Had you gone a step further and said, "We should coöpt..." I would have objected.

Peter