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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:39:08 -0800

This is a technical comment on both draft-4646bis and, by implication, 
draft-4645bis.

Summary:
I propose that the new region subtags based on ISO 3166-1 "exceptionally 
reserved" code elements, and the wording that authorizes them, be 
removed from both drafts.

Discussion:
This topic was discussed at significant length during November 2007. 
Most of what I am writing here is a summary of what has gone before, 
repackaged for Last Call.  An earlier argument, which itself contains 
links to still earlier arguments, is at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg08851.html .

Historically, RFC 4646 and its predecessors (including common practice 
in the days before RFC 1766) limited two-letter region subtags to those 
corresponding to code elements formally assigned in ISO 3166-1.  The 
primary reason for adding the exceptionally reserved ("ER") code 
elements was apparently to allow 'EU' to be used with the meaning 
"European Union," not for language tagging per se, but in CLDR and other 
works that are not related to language tagging.  The other ER code 
elements, such as 'DG' for "Diego Garcia" and 'EA' for "Ceuta [and] 
Melilla," were ancillary to this objective; they were added in 
preference to cherry-picking 'EU' out of the list of ER codes (a 
preference I certainly shared).

In justifying this change, Mark Davis wrote, "BCP 47 is not only the 
source of language tags; it is *the* reference for stabilized, 
maintainable codes for languages, scripts, and regions."  While I 
appreciate the desire to have a work such as CLDR derive its code list 
from a stable reference, this does not require the BCP 47 code list to 
include all entities that might be useful to a derivative work. 
Instead, CLDR could be defined as a profile of BCP 47, and add code 
elements beyond those provided in BCP 47 as necessary for its own needs.

There are other region subtags already in the Language Subtag Registry 
that are known, or highly suspected, not to be useful for identification 
of language variations.  Some of the better-known examples are 'AQ' for 
"Antarctica" and 'BV' for "Bouvet Island."  However, those subtags were 
included in the Registry in strict accordance with the philosophy of 
incorporating all of the *formally assigned* ISO 3166-1 code elements, 
without cherry-picking them for perceived relevance.

For RFC 4646, the LTRU WG added the UN M.49 numeric code elements 
corresponding to supra-national regions, to provide additional region 
subtags for demonstrated language tagging needs.  The poster child for 
this particular need was '419' for "Latin American and the Caribbean," 
useful for Spanish as used in certain Spanish-speaking areas of the New 
World but not in Spain.

But the WG explicitly excluded UN codes categorized under "Selected 
economic and other groupings," because those codes represent groups of 
geographically and linguistically unrelated nations and have no 
pertinence to language tagging.  An example is '432' for "Landlocked 
developing countries," a grouping that includes Bolivia, Chad, Laos, and 
Moldova.  The WG correctly decided to consider *relevance to language 
tagging* in deciding which categories of UN code to include and which to 
exclude.

Making an explicit change to RFC 4646bis to add the ISO 3166-1 ER code 
elements presents the impression that they must fulfill a particular 
language tagging need, just as the act of adding the UN codes fulfilled 
such a need.  However, no such need has been demonstrated *for language 
tagging*, only for locale designation and ease of cross-checking between 
standards.  John Cowan mentioned that "English as spoken on Tristan da 
Cunha" is a recognized variety of English, but there is no actual 
evidence of a need to tag this variety.

Claims of a requirement to tag "European Union English" as distinct from 
"English as spoken in {Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern} Europe" 
(all of which could be implemented with numeric UN-based region subtags) 
have been based on the notion of an EU "bureaucratese" which has not 
been shown to exist, at least not in any way beyond ordinary 
bureaucratese, and which in any case would not be truly region-based and 
thus not appropriate for a region subtag.  A variant subtag is the 
normal mechanism for tagging specialized jargon.

In short, to make a change like this in BCP 47, there should be a good 
reason why the change is necessary and the status quo is inadequate for 
language tagging.  No good reason has been demonstrated IMHO, although 
several reasons ranging from marginal to bogus have appeared.

None of my objection to these subtags has anything to do with the 
additional overhead of adding seven new region subtags to the RFC 
4645bis Registry, which already contains 289 region subtags and 8,304 
tags and subtags overall.  Also, none of my objection constitutes a 
judgment of the political or institutional legitimacy of the European 
Union; this is not the purpose of the Registry or of the LTRU effort.

My specific proposal is that all wording in draft-4646bis and 
draft-4645bis related to the addition of these region subtags be 
removed, including the actual subtags in the 4645bis Registry.  I can 
itemize the specific passages to be changed if desired.

I do not intend to oppose the drafts or file an appeal if this comment 
is rejected, but I do ask that the comment be duly considered by the WG 
and ruled upon by the co-chairs.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
Editor, draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis
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: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:43:08 -0500

> removed from both drafts.

Just as a reminder, the seven code elements at issue are:

AC (Ascension Island)
CP (Clipperton Island)
DG (Diego Garcia)
EA (Ceuta and Melilla)
EU (European Union)
IC (Canary Islands)
TA (Tristan da Cunha)

Loosely speaking, AC, DG, and TA are attached to the U.K., CP to France,
EA and IC to Spain, and EU is sui generis.  There is also FX, which is
already in the registry, and UK, which is excluded by rule.

> The primary reason for adding the exceptionally reserved ("ER") code
> "European Union," not for language tagging per se, but in CLDR and
> other works that are not related to language tagging.  The other ER
> code elements, such as 'DG' for "Diego Garcia" and 'EA' for "Ceuta
> [and] Melilla," were ancillary to this objective; they were added
> in preference to cherry-picking 'EU' out of the list of ER codes
> (a preference I certainly shared).

True enough historically; however, I think the case for adding the six is
better than the case for adding EU.  AC and TA are administratively part
of SH, but geographically and linguistically they are on a par with the
eleven other ordinary British overseas territories, each of which has an
officially assigned 3166 code element (viz.  AI, BM, FK, GI, GS, IO, KY,
MS, PN, TC, VI).  And if AC and CP have no native inhabitants, no more
does GS (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands).  The Sovereign
Base Areas in Cyprus are military bases, and the British Antarctic
Territory is not internationally recognized, which probably accounts
for their lack of code elements.

In short, I think that for six of the seven elements at issue, their
status as exceptionally reserved is more or less accidental and ought
to be ignored by us.  The ones with native inhabitants do have special
varieties of their official languages, and there is no reason why en-AI
should be privileged over en-TA.  (Note that these en-* varieties are
distinct from the creoles also spoken in these places.)

Given that, and given that someone wants EU and there is no reason to
cherry-pick it out, I continue in favor of the seven code elements.

> evidence of a need to tag this variety.

Since when have we demanded actual evidence of this sort?  It has always
sufficed to present actual evidence of the existence of a variety.

> normal mechanism for tagging specialized jargon.

I agree.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders.
        --Hal Abelson
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:58:03 -0800

I agree with John.

Mark

On Feb 10, 2008 2:43 PM, John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> John Cowan  [email-masked]  http://ccil.org/~cowan<http://ccil.org/%7Ecowan>

-- 
Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:00:15 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
> To: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 2:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] WGLC: remove new region subtags from 4646bis/4645bis(long)
>
> I agree with John.
> 
> Mark
> 
...
> > cherry-pick it out, I continue in favor of the seven code elements.
...

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.

Randy

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:18:43 +0100

> cherry-pick it out, I continue in favor of the seven code elements.

I agree (mostly), but see no real reason to exclude "UK". "UK"
is a code for a real territory, even though that code has a
preferred alias.

> > normal mechanism for tagging specialized jargon.

I sort of agree, but "bureaucratese" is not the reason to
include "EU". (Nor do I think "bureaucratese" is in general
a good reason for variant subtags. There may be exceptions.)

Language tags and locale designators are so closely related,
and the code "EU" is desired for locale designators, that I
see no reason to split hairs on this territory code.

	/kent k

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:48:53 -0500

> is a code for a real territory, even though that code has a

We don't introduce subtags that have already-existing preferred aliases.

> and the code "EU" is desired for locale designators, 

I still don't understand why it is so desired.  Can someone try
again, please?

-- 
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove     John Cowan    [email-masked]
you're not a dog.  --Bill de hOra               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:59:43 -0800

I have no objection to inclusion of the exceptionally-reserved code elements in 3166-1.

Doug mentioned explicit exclusion of the M.49 "Selected economic and other groupings," presumably as though that were an analogous situation to the 3166-1 exceptionally-reserved code elements. I do not find these comparable: As Doug demonstrated, the former are groups of regions/nations that truly have nothing relevant to language in common. In contrast, the latter all denote a contiguous region or political entity, notions which we know *can* be relevant for language tagging.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 6:00 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:00:14 +0100

> We don't introduce subtags that have already-existing 

I don't see time ordering as overwhelmingly critical in a
case like this.

> I still don't understand why it is so desired.  Can someone try

Locales are often used to get a particular collation order.
EOR (European Ordering Rules) was created by CEN to get a common
"European" (EU really, as CEN is an EU organisation) ordering.
A locale named sv_EU would be for Swedish with EOR collation.
I agree that it would not be very commonly used, and would be
inappropriate for Swedish-only purposes, but may be useful in
an EU context.

	/kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:24:23 -0800

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'John Cowan'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "'LTRU Working Group'" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] WGLC: remove new region subtags from4646bis/4645bis(long)
...
...

This WG's concern is language tagging, not locales.  That a particular
subtag might find applicability there is not persuasive.  The back-and-
forth about EU strikes me as a red herring.  The real issue is whether
there are any codes in this grouping that look like they'll be useful.  I think
*that* has already been established.  Taken together with the "no cherry-
picking" principle, I think the case has already been made.

As co chair:
Now, if you want to argue that UK should also be added, this really is a
separate issue and should be raised in a separate thread.  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 pending a re-hash
of UK.

Randy