Subject: [Ltru] [ot] he/iw reversed (was: Re: Matching Text)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:49:22 -0700

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> It's on my homepage, http://macchiato.com/. However, it's a 
> presentation, not a paper, so it is only a sketch of what I will 
> actually discuss.

I wish I could go.  I wish I wish I wish.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain the comment on frame 9:  "he/iw 
reversed: compatibility"

I think I know what it means, but I hope I'm wrong.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
NEW URL -->  http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell  <-- NEW URL
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:01:51 -0400

> I think I know what it means, but I hope I'm wrong.

It means, as I happen to know, that "iw" is used internally rather than
"he", for historical reasons.  This is of course perfectly allowable.

-- 
The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound   John Cowan <[email-masked]>
free-range chickens (except they have   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
teeth, arms instead of wings, and
dinosaurlike tails).                        --Elyse Grasso

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:33:58 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> Just out of curiosity, can you explain the comment on frame 9: 
>> "he/iw reversed: compatibility"
>
> It means, as I happen to know, that "iw" is used internally rather 
> than "he", for historical reasons.  This is of course perfectly 
> allowable.

Oh, that's fine.  They can use anything they like internally.  I was 
afraid it had something to do with preferring "iw" over "he" in pages 
tagged by users, finding better matches with "iw" or exposing "iw" to 
users in the UI.

"iw" was withdrawn from ISO 639 eighteen years ago, along with "in" and 
"ji", long before there was widespread language tagging of electronic 
documents.  There should be no reason to encourage its continued use.