Subject: [Ltru] Unicity of variant subtags (Was: BCP47 Appeals process

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:11:38 +0200

[From ietf-languages.]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 03:24:24PM -0400,
 John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 38 lines which said:

> Yury Tarasievich scripsit:
> 
> > Now, I'd like somebody to confirm the notion of subtags having an
> > indepent scope of reference in the registry. People keep referring
> > to the Need of some universal accomodations for the rather
> > unlikely (or rare) events -- like of some national academy issuing
> > the standard for some other national language.
> 
> It's a matter of existing practice in this mailing list, which is
> run in a common-law fashion -- that is, precedents are important:
> though they cannot override statute law, they do explain and clarify
> it in binding ways.

Indeed, I was quite surprised to see that nowhere in RFC 4646 the
unicity of variants (independantly of the Prefix) is mandated. Unless
I missed something?

Which means that, in theory, two different variants could have the
same subtag, at least is they have different prefixes? We could, again
in theory, have fr-academ and be-academ where the two "academ" would
be two different variants, registered separately?

Am I crazy or just missing coffee?

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

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:25:41 -0700

> Am I crazy or just missing coffee?

Sip some coffee :-D.

Section 3.5 says (in part):

--
Requests to add a prefix to a variant subtag that imply a different semantic meaning will probably be rejected. For example, a request to add the prefix "de" to the subtag 'nedis' so that the tag "de-nedis" represented some German dialect would be rejected. The 'nedis' subtag represents a particular Slovenian dialect and the additional registration would change the semantic meaning assigned to the subtag. A separate subtag SHOULD be proposed instead.
--

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 2:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Yury Tarasievich
> Subject: [Ltru] Unicity of variant subtags (Was: BCP47 Appeals
> process
> 
> [From ietf-languages.]
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0400

> unicity of variants (independantly of the Prefix) is mandated. Unless

This is an example of the customary practice of this list (or its monarch,
if you like).  We are constrained by BCP 47, but it does not define
every detail of what we do, nor is it for the most part a charter of
rights and freedoms such that everyone who complies with the letter of
the law will necessarily get their subtag registered.

-- 
John Cowan   [email-masked]  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is
dramatically overdescribed.  Still other languages are simultaneously
overdescribed and underdescribed.  Welsh pertains to the third category.
        --Alan King
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:05:43 +0200

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 09:25:41AM -0700,
 Phillips, Addison <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Section 3.5 says (in part):

OK, but it is not, IMHO, crystal clear. (Apparently, this is also what
John Cowan thinks since he says that uniqueness is not in the texts,
only in the practice.)

We are in WGLC so I won't suggest a change to 4646bis but I should
have noticed earlier that uniqueness of variant subtags could have
been expressed more clearly.