Subject: Re: [Ltru] WGLC: remove new region subtags from 4646bis/4645bis (long)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:14:07 -0800

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> As a technical contributor, I agree with John and Mark that it makes 
> sense to include the seven "exceptionally reserved" code elements for 
> purposes of language tagging.  I think the question of whether they 
> might also find use in constructing locales or anything else is a red 
> herring as far as this mailing list is concerned.

Just to make sure nobody is misled by this:  Almost all subtags are 
"also" of use in constructing locales, and of course I never argued that 
point.  My concern is that 'EU' and the other subtags appeared to have 
been added *only* for locale usage.  Like Randy, I agree that the 
concern of the WG and its products is language tagging, not locales, and 
so I oppose subtags that exist primarily to facilitate locales.

John and Peter have argued that the new subtags have genuine utility for 
language tagging (though I still have not been convinced about 'EU'),. 
and that appears to be an effective rebuttal to my proposal.  As I said, 
I wanted to be sure the issue was raised, but will not fight to the 
death over it.

On the other hand, I continue to be *very* strongly opposed to adding 
the duplicative 'UK' region subtag.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:37:09 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
> "also" of use in constructing locales, and of course I never 
> argued that point.  My concern is that 'EU' and the other subtags 
> appeared to have been added *only* for locale usage.

What is the problem if one subtag or another *of exactly the same
kind as are used for language tagging* is used "only" for locales.
I don't see a crisis there. There are lots and lots of combinations
of subtags that are valid but useful neither for language tagging
nor locales. If you see that as a major problem, you should argue
against the generative system that LTRU was created to introduce.

> the duplicative 'UK' region subtag.

I see the possible subtag "UK" as exactly parallel to e.g. the
subtag "iw" (and a few more like it) that are already in the registry.

I may have missed something, but RFC 1766 makes no difference between
officially assigned codes in ISO 3166-1 and other codes in ISO 3166-1
(like exceptionally reserved ones), apart from unassigned (implicitly)
and user assigned codes (explicitly).

	/kent k

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:51:06 -0800

(Changing the Subject line, since this no longer deals with my LC 
comment)

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> What is the problem if one subtag or another *of exactly the same kind 
> as are used for language tagging* is used "only" for locales. I don't 
> see a crisis there. There are lots and lots of combinations of subtags 
> that are valid but useful neither for language tagging nor locales. If 
> you see that as a major problem, you should argue against the 
> generative system that LTRU was created to introduce.

Working backwards here:

1.  LTRU did not introduce the generative system insofar as it deals 
with language-region combinations.  That system has existed at least 
since RFC 1766, if not earlier.  LTRU extended the generative system to 
include scripts and variants.

2.  I don't see what the existence of combinations of subtags that are 
not "useful" (I imagine "es-CN" would be an example of this) has to do 
with intentionally adding aliases, whether for language tags or locales.

3.  RFC 4646 and the Language Subtag Registry are for language tagging. 
They can *also* be used for locales, as Randy observed, but the focus is 
on language tagging.  There is no mechanism to specify, "Use this subtag 
or combination for locales only."

> I see the possible subtag "UK" as exactly parallel to e.g. the subtag 
> "iw" (and a few more like it) that are already in the registry.

'iw' and others were added for a specific, historical reason. 
Originally they were officially assigned in ISO 639; then they were 
withdrawn and replaced with 'he' and others in 1989.  During that time 
frame, there was no "official ISO 639 Web site" that users could visit 
to find out that 'iw' had been withdrawn and replaced with 'he', but 
there were lots of unofficial references posted on bulletin boards and 
FTP and Gopher sites that continued to show the old code elements. 
Because of the prevalence of these unofficial references, the great 
likelihood was that such codes were still in legitimate use for language 
tags, even though RFC 1766 was not introduced until 1995.  And because 
RFC 4646 is committed to preserving the validity of all valid RFC 1766 
tags, 'iw' and friends were added to the Registry.

The same situation applies to region subtags like 'BU', which has the 
same meaning (as far as we are concerned) as 'MM'.  That is, 'BU' 
represents an ISO 3166 code element that was once officially assigned, 
before it was withdrawn in 1989 and replaced with 'MM', and it is still 
in the Registry because of the likelihood of its legitimate use in RFC 
1766 language tags.

'UK' was never officially assigned in ISO 3166, only reserved so that it 
would not be assigned to another country (most likely Ukraine) and cause 
confusion.  The criteria that apply to 'iw' and 'BU' do not apply to 
'UK'.

> and user assigned codes (explicitly).

RFC 1766 says, "In the first subtag: All 2-letter codes are interpreted 
as ISO 3166 alpha-2 country codes denoting the area in which the 
language is used."  (RFC 1766 used the terms "primary language tag" and 
"first subtag" for what were reclassified as "primary subtag" and 
"second subtag" in RFC 3066, the terms we use today.)  I suppose we can 
debate whether "ISO 3166 codes" is limited to officially assigned code 
elements or also includes reserved ones.  ISO 3166/MA is fairly clear 
that reserved code elements do not form part of the standard; their FAQ 
refers to them as "code elements which do not qualify for inclusion in 
ISO 3166-1."

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:22:48 -0800

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell

> so I oppose subtags that exist primarily to facilitate locales.

I do *not* oppose subtags that might have utility primarily for locales, provided that they are subtags of the same type as we already support: language, script and region.

Peter

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:28:06 -0800

> not "useful" (I imagine "es-CN" would be an example of this)

I don't think it's our rule to judge that "es-CN" isn't useful. Equally, I don't think it's our role to judge that "es-EU" isn't useful.

Peter

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:35:03 -0800

Agreed. Moreover, the term "primarily" is important, since EU can be
also used for language tags. Certainly it is as or more useful than
other tags like BV.

I agree with Randy's co-chair position: "I think we
are close to rough consensus on the seven (AC, CP, DG, EA, EU, IC, TA)
and would rather not prolong the discussion of them"

So I think we need to close this thread.

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:43:30 -0800

For the subtag "UK", I don't care much one way or another between two
positions:

   1. Add UK, but as deprecated, pointing to GB.
   2. Don't add UK.

The advantage of #1 is that if we do get "es-UK", we would automatically map
it to "es-GB" and be done with it. And that was clearly the intent of the
generator of the tag -- it does sneak in because the domain name is UK --
and domain names otherwise correspond fairly closely.

The disadvantage is that it is one more deprecated tag to worry about. So
I'm perfectly happy leaving it out.

Mark

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:52:03 +0100

> (Changing the Subject line, since this no longer deals with my LC 

Despite that the first part of exchange was about "EU" not "UK"...

> since RFC 1766, if not earlier.  LTRU extended the generative 
> system to include scripts and variants.

As far as I can see "UK" (nor "IC" and other "exceptionally reserved"
codes, though I haven't checked when they were introduced as
"exceptionally reserved" in ISO 3166-1) are included by RFC 1766.

> has to do 

You're mixing up the "EU" and the "UK" subthreads here.

> or combination for locales only."

No, why should there be?

=====
Switching from "EU" to "UK" subthread.
=====

> in the Registry because of the likelihood of its legitimate 
> use in RFC 1766 language tags.
> 

"UK" is not plain "reserved". According to http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm, it is "exceptionally reserved"
***for "United Kingdom"***.

No date is listed in the "Remark" column, so lacking data to the contrary,
RFC 1766 allowed for the use of "UK" in RFC 1766 language tags.

Even readers of RFC 4647 think "UK" is a valid region subtag, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pana/current/msg02511.html.
That includes one of our editors; see http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:a57r__oBm_sJ:www.inter-locale.com/whitepaper/02-C_a306_Phillips_Langtags.ppt+UK+language+tag&hl=sv&ct=clnk&cd=62.
Look for "eng-UK", which is said to be "not legal" since "eng" is
used instead of "en", but not seeing anything wrong with using "UK"...

It's not all that uncommon in (apparent) language tags "in the wild" either:
www.abisko.net/default.aspx?lang=en-UK, http://www.learn4auto.com/en-UK,
http://www.kth.se/?l=en_UK, http://www.centrumgroup.com/cu/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=676&l=en_UK,
www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp?d=520&language=en_UK, ... (I had no
hand in creating these sites that use the (very few) language tags,
or seeming to be language tags.)

Also Google uses "en-UK", see https://adwords.google.com/support/.
The page contains a number of apparent language tags "en-uk".

Or http://www.wayfinder.com/?sid=49 (look at the "about us" etc.
links).

Ok, these apparent language tags aren't "true" language
tags, but they are surely intented to be structured and look
like language tags.

	/kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:27:59 -0800

Hi -

As ltru co-chair...

Based on the discussion, as co-chair, I'm ruling that we have rough
consensus to retain  the seven (AC, CP, DG, EA, EU, IC, TA)
exceptionally reserved code elements.  This resolution results in no
changes to the drafts.  This issue is now closed.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:45:03 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair:

As I understand how this thread is currently playing out, there is no proposal
for a change to the rules for the contruction of language tags, nor is there a
proposal for a change to the operation of the registry.  It is *solely* about
a proposal to add a specific subtag "UK" to the registry.  As such, the
discussion belongs on the [email-masked] mailing list, where
a properly submitted subtag registration request would be given due
consideration by the language subtag reviewer.

Further posts on this topic at [email-masked] will be ruled off-topic *unless*
they clearly establish how they affect the operation of the registry, the
addition of the ISO 639-3 codes to the registry, or the processing of
language tags in general.

Randy

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:13:17 -0500

Randy Presuhn scripsit:

> As I understand how this thread is currently playing out, there
> is no proposal for a change to the rules for the contruction of
> language tags, nor is there a proposal for a change to the operation
> of the registry.  It is *solely* about a proposal to add a specific
> subtag "UK" to the registry.  As such, the discussion belongs on the
> [email-masked] mailing list, where a properly submitted subtag
> registration request would be given due consideration by the language
> subtag reviewer.

That turns out not to be the case.

1) The 'UK' tag is explicitly excluded by the current draft; if it is
to be allowed, this necessitates a change to the draft, and changes to
the drafts must be discussed here.

2) The ietf-languages list has no mechanism for adding region subtags
other than those officially assigned by 3166/MA and not already on
the list.  The code element 'UK' does not have this property.

AFAICT, the only way to have the matter discussed on ietf-languages is to
write language into the draft requesting and requiring that ietf-languages
make the decision, and even that would only have effect after the adoption
of RFC 4646bis.

So if the question cannot be discussed here, the status quo stands,
because it cannot be officially discussed anywhere else.

-- 
The experiences of the past show                John Cowan
that there has always been a discrepancy        [email-masked]
between plans and performance.                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Emperor Hirohito, August 1945
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:11:21 +0100

> As co-chair:
...
> discussion belongs on the [email-masked] mailing list, where

As John notes, this issue is off-topic for ietf-languages, and "UK"
can never be added in any way via ietf-languages.

> language tags in general.

I think it is inappropriate for a co-chair to force status quo
by ruling an on-topic discussion to be off-topic, while referring
the issue to a list where it really is off-topic.

The issue at hand here is the domain of LTRU and its 4645bis and
4646bis, but cannot be handled by ietf-languages under current as
well as prospective operational rules for ietf-languages.

Not allowing "UK" into the registry, will not remove use instances of
"en-UK" language tags. And those tags have been written in good faith.
While "in error", it would be better to treat them as if they really
said "en-GB" rather than reject them as invalid.

Of course a "UK" territory subtag should be deprecated with a
preferred value of GB. 

	/kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:51:13 -0800

Hi -

Our documents are in WG last call.  The time for arm-waving
proposals is long past.  If you want a change to either i-d,
propose specific text.  Unless proposing specific text, further
posts on this thread are *not* welcome.  If you think a change
to the registry rules is desirable, PLEASE PROPOSE THE
EXACT EDITS YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE.  It's time to
finish off this work so the rest of us can move on to interesting
things.

If you think I'm behaving inappropriately, feel free to consult
with our AD.

Randy
as ltru co-chair

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:32:37 -0500

> finish off this work so the rest of us can move on to interesting

Status quo for RFC 4646bis, Section 2.2.4, bullet point 2:

All two-character subtags following the primary subtag were defined
in the IANA registry according to the assignments found in [ISO3166‑1]
(International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 3166-1:2006. Codes
for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions --
Part 1: Country codes,” November 2006.) ("Codes for the representation
of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes")
using the list of alpha-2 country codes, or using assignments subsequently
made by the ISO 3166 maintenance agency or governing standardization
bodies. In addition, the codes that are "exceptionally reserved" (as
opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1 were also defined in the registry,
with the exception of 'UK', which is an exact synonym for the assigned
code 'GB'.

Proposal 1 for RFC 4646bis, Section 2.2.4, bullet point 2:

All two-character subtags following the primary subtag were defined in
the IANA registry according to the assignments found in [ISO3166‑1]
(International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 3166-1:2006. Codes
for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions --
Part 1: Country codes,” November 2006.) ("Codes for the representation
of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes")
using the list of alpha-2 country codes, or using assignments subsequently
made by the ISO 3166 maintenance agency or governing standardization
bodies. In addition, the codes that are "exceptionally reserved" (as
opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1 were also defined in the registry.

Proposal 2 for RFC 4646bis, Section 2.2.4, bullet point 2:

All two-character subtags following the primary subtag were defined in
the IANA registry according to the assignments found in [ISO3166‑1]
(International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 3166-1:2006. Codes
for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions --
Part 1: Country codes,” November 2006.) ("Codes for the representation
of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes")
using the list of alpha-2 country codes, or using assignments subsequently
made by the ISO 3166 maintenance agency or governing standardization
bodies. In addition, the codes that are "exceptionally reserved" (as
opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1 were also defined in the registry,
with the exception of 'UK'.  The question of whether 'UK' should be added
to the registry was explicitly deferred to the ietf-languages list.

-- 
You're a brave man! Go and break through the            John Cowan
lines, and remember while you're out there              [email-masked]
risking life and limb through shot and shell,           http://ccil.org/~cowan
we'll be in here thinking what a sucker you are!
        --Rufus T. Firefly
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:52:45 +0100

> finish off this work so the rest of us can move on to interesting

For 4645bis:

1) Replace
	"UK" (United Kingdom) was not added because it is associated with
      the same UN M.49 code (826) as the existing region subtag "GB".
      Section 3.4, item 14 (D) of [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-11] states
      that a new region subtag is not added if it carries the same
      meaning as an existing region subtag.
   with
	"UK" (United Kingdom) was added as deprecated with a preferred
	value of "GB" because it is associated with the same UN M.49
      code (826) as the region subtag "GB" already in the registry.
	One may read RFC 1766 as that exceptionally reserved region
	subtags could be used, and they have been, so this an issue
	of stability from what could be seen as valid per RFC 1766.

2) add the following lines in the list of subtag records:
	%%
	Type: region
	Subtag: UK
	Description: United Kingdom
	Added: <appropriate date>
	Preferred-Value: GB
	Deprecated: <appropriate date>

   (the <appropriate date> here should be the same in both instances
   here and also be the same as for IC etc.)

For 4646bis:

1) Replace
                                      In addition, the codes that are
       "exceptionally reserved" (as opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1
       were also defined in the registry, with the exception of 'UK',
       which is an exact synonym for the assigned code 'GB'.
   with
                                       In addition, the codes that are
       "exceptionally reserved" (as opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1
       were also defined in the registry. However, 'UK' is deprecated
       because it is an exact synonym for the assigned code 'GB', thus
       treating it in the same way as e.g. 'iw'.

2) Replace
      reserved" ISO 3166-1 codes other than 'UK' were included into the
   with
      reserved" ISO 3166-1 codes were included ('UK' as deprecated) into the

Note that I do not suggest that future aliases, if any, be treated this way.
This is an exception, since the exceptional reservation of 'UK' *for
United Kingdom* (rather than be reserved for nothing in particular)
predates RFC 4646, and it stands for a real region, and that one can
interpret RFC 1766 as allowing the use of 'UK' just as much as the use
of e.g. 'iw'.

		/kent k

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:32:19 -0800

Kent's proposed changes seem sensible to me.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> Kent Karlsson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:53 PM
> To: 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] The case against adding 'UK'
>
> Randy Presuhn wrote:

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:46:24 -0800

Ur... are you sure? Adding 'UK' as a deprecated code has the effect of 
making tags such as "en-UK" valid (they are not now valid).

I oppose making these changes because of the confusion that allowing 
this special case would create. The invalidity of 'UK' is both 
deliberate and good.

Alternatively, if we really must add it, a Comment really should be 
included specifying exactly why it was included.

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:02:11 +0100

> making tags such as "en-UK" valid (they are not now valid).

That is the point. en-UK occurs in practice already, and, as I've
already mentioned, it is not apparent that it is a breach of
RFC 1766 to use "UK" as a region code in language tags.

> this special case would create. The invalidity of 'UK' is both 

Ideally there would be no aliases, and no "pure garbage" codes
(like "eur", but I fear that 639-3 MA will not retire it in time).

"UK" as a code is not garbage at all, and while ideally there
should be no (deprecated, of course) aliases, this one falls
in the same category as "iw" and a few other codes. Preexisting
aliases for codes that stand for real 'items'. (Quite different
from "eur" b.t.w.)

> included specifying exactly why it was included.

No objection (but no more necessary than for e.g. "iw"). Perhaps:
"Comment: Preexisting "exceptionally reserved" alias code,
    included for stability reasons."

		/kent k

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:50:00 -0000

I agree with Kent.

Best wishes

Debbie Garside

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Kent Karlsson
> Sent: 12 February 2008 23:53
> To: 'LTRU Working Group'
> proposals
> > is long past.  If you want a change to either i-d, propose specific
> > text.  Unless proposing specific text, further posts on this thread
> > are *not* welcome.  If you think a change to the registry rules is
> > desirable, PLEASE PROPOSE THE EXACT EDITS YOU WOULD LIKE TO
> SEE.  It's
> > time to finish off this work so the rest of us can move on to
> > interesting things.
>
> For 4645bis:
>
> 1) Replace
> This is an exception, since the exceptional reservation of
> 'UK' *for United Kingdom* (rather than be reserved for
> nothing in particular) predates RFC 4646, and it stands for a
> real region, and that one can interpret RFC 1766 as allowing
> the use of 'UK' just as much as the use of e.g. 'iw'.
>
> 		/kent k
>

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:25:48 -0800

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

> included specifying exactly why it was included.

I guess it comes down to two issues:

- what the best way is to discourage usage, and
- what is needed to deal with any existing usage

Peter