Subject: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 06:45:37 -0700

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

>> Hard to say.  I think at this moment there are more contributors who 
>> favor (1) than (2), but the two main proponents of (2) are the 
>> co-editors of 4646bis, which does tip the balance a bit.
>
> No, it does not.  Editors do the bidding of the WG, see RFC 2418 
> clause 6.3.  As such they are *not* given special consideration in the 
> determination of working group consensus.

But they might well be given special consideration by other list members 
who haven't made up their minds yet.  I would guess that with the small 
number of people solidly on one side or the other, the battle for the 
"undecided" bloc will be important.

--
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: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 06:56:05 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> The Registry contains some fields that are normative and some that 
>> are informative.  For the informative stuff, say Suppress-Script, 
>> it's very reasonable to expect that some people will ignore the 
>> warnings and write "en-Latn", and all we can do is tell them they 
>> shouldn't.
>
> No, Suppress-Script is not only "informative", it got some normative 
> SHOULD rules in BCP 47.  These rules aren't mandatory / required 
> MUSTard, but still normative.
>
> ITYM that the Suppress-Script field isn't guaranteed to be "stable", 
> but it's not "informative" like say Comment or Added.

I must not be a good enough RFC 2119 language lawyer to understand this. 
I thought MUST was normative, and SHOULD and MAY were non-normative. 
It's hard for me to see how "the full implications must be understood 
and carefully weighed," in the RFC 2119 definition of SHOULD, can be 
applied in a normative sense.

I note that RFC 4646 contains a lot of MUSTard, but almost no direct 
references to fields or behaviors being "normative" or "informative."

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:26:23 -0400

> I thought MUST was normative, and SHOULD and MAY were non-normative. 

I think that's a misunderstanding of "normative".  MUST, SHOULD, and
MAY all represent norms, they are just different kinds of norms, about
required, recommended, and optional behavior respectively.  A statement
in an RFC such as "A client MAY provide a CRC-32 checksum" means that it
is conformant either to provide the checksum or to omit it; no server
may complain in either case of a violation of the protocol.  This is
normatively defined behavior (or lack of behavior) on the server's part.

Informative content, on the other hand, is historical, exemplary,
explanatory, or the like.

By this standard, the Type, Subtag, Tag, Prefix, Preferred-Value,
and Suppress-Script fields are normative; the Description, Added,
Deprecated, Comments, and File-Date fields are informative.

-- 
Where the wombat has walked,            John Cowan <[email-masked]>
it will inevitably walk again.          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:50:31 -0700

Hi -

As co-chair...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:45 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags
>
> who haven't made up their minds yet.

This would be a bad thing.  RFC 2418 is abundantly clear that document
editors do not enjoy any special privileges in determining WG consensus.
Sometimes editors happen to be experts in the topic, sometimes they are not.
But if a WG starts giving their voices more weight merely because they
happen to be editors, something is seriously wrong.

>  I would guess that with the small 

Perhaps, though the undecided have little import for a determination
of rough consensus.  At some point Martin and I will have to make
a determination of consensus.  It's clear that none of the options
will make everyone happy.  It's possible that none of the options
will make anyone happy in the long run.  Since there has been so little
in the way of new information or arguments in this discussion,
I think Martin and I will just have to pick one, based on the opinions
expressed on this list so far, since few new voices seem to be joining
in to express a preference.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:01:47 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:56 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Informative (was: Extended language tags)
...
> I thought MUST was normative, and SHOULD and MAY were non-normative.

No.  If language is relevant to determining whether an implementation
conforms to a specification, it is normative.  Specifying something as
an option does NOT make it non-normative.  In general, "informative"
material is stuff that can be removed from a specification without
changing any implementation requirements.  "SHOULDs" and "MAYs"
obviously do not fall into that category - they are normative language.

> applied in a normative sense.

The fact that a particular feature is OPTIONAL doesn't make that part
of the specification "informative".  Think snow tires.  They may be
optional in some areas, but when you do get them, you want them to
fit your car's rims and behave as specified.

> references to fields or behaviors being "normative" or "informative."

"informative" material should be used sparingly in a specification,
because folks have an unfortunate tendency to confuse an illustration
or example with the specification itself.

Randy

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:39:49 -0700

> or example with the specification itself.

More to the point: the normative language associated with 
Suppress-Script in draft-08 of 4646bis is limited to two cases:

1. Directions for the handling of registrations of Suppress-Script 
and/or its appearance in the registry.

2. (Repeatedly) indicate that its appearance in the registry means that 
users SHOULD NOT use the associated script with the associated language. 
  At least one counter-example is given. These normative instructions 
are always directed at the issue of tag choice. That is, there are no 
conformance criteria for tag processors because that would be inappropriate.

This means that it is a normative field. But this normative information 
does not apply to (for example) conformance criteria for software 
implementations of RFC 4646/4646bis.

Addison

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

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:40:18 -0700

First off, I agree with Andy that the editor's contributions should be
judged on technical merit, just like everyone else's.

As far as a conclusion goes. Any judgment of consensus at this point is
premature. We are increasing the size of the registry by a huge margin, and
considering whether to add a significant piece of architecture: it is more
important that this revision be correctly designed than that it meet some
arbitrary deadline. I think that the telecons have been valuable for
bringing out the issues, and we already planned for another this week. As
long as we are making progress with that, we should continue. It is useful
when the chairs could make that meeting: Randy's been to one of them.
Martin, is that time too difficult for you?

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:12:57 -0700

Just FYI, tomorrow morning (9 am Pacific) call can be accessed:

Dial-In #: +1.888.371.8922

International Dial-In #: +1.617.224.4792

Participant Passcode: 58371972

Addison

Mark Davis wrote:
> premature. We are increasing the size of the registry by a huge margin, 
> and considering whether to add a significant piece of architecture: it 
> is more important that this revision be correctly designed than that it 
> meet some arbitrary deadline. I think that the telecons have been 
> valuable for bringing out the issues, and we already planned for another 
> this week. As long as we are making progress with that, we should 
> continue. It is useful when the chairs could make that meeting: Randy's 
> been to one of them. Martin, is that time too difficult for you?
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 10/9/07, *Randy Presuhn* <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi -
> 
>     As co-chair...
> 
>      > From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>      > To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:50:04 -0700

Sorry I wasn't able to call in this morning. Had a high pri/high urgency task to take care of.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:13 PM
> To: Mark Davis
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags
>
> >      > > clause 6.3.  As such they are *not* given special
> consideration
> >     in the
> >      > But they might well be given special consideration by other
> list
> >     members
> >     Sometimes editors happen to be experts in the topic, sometimes
> they
> >     are not.
> >      > number of people solidly on one side or the other, the battle
> for
> >     the

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:55:21 -0700

This e-mail went out too late for me to participate. Please try to send 
notice before the close of business the day before the call.

Karen Broome

Addison Phillips <[email-masked]> 
10/09/2007 08:12 PM

To
Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
cc
LTRU Working Group <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

Addison

---

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:54:31 -0700

And a warning before then'd be nice too :)

Is there a plan for another teleconference?

- Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: Addison Phillips
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

Karen Broome

To

Addison

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:01:00 -0700

Yes, we're planning to have them each Wednesday, same time, as long as we
are making progress. (Except we're going to skip next week, because of the
Unicode conference.)

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:10:16 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Shawn Steele" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:54 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Teleconference
...
...

There was talk of holding another one on October 24.

While these discussions have been helpful, I'm concerned that
rather few people have been actually participating in them.  But
what is most important is that that progress translates into progress
in the discussion on the WG mailing list, and progress towards
consensus on what our deliverables should say.

Randy

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:34:51 -0700

Randy,

Perhaps a poll for day/time options?

Addison

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:42:00 -0400

> There was talk of holding another one on October 24.

That's unnecessarily vague.  There *will* be another one on October 24,
and (I think) every week thereafter until we are deadlocked or there is
consensus.  All are invited and urged to show up.  The dialup information
is always the same:

        Time: 9:00-10:00 Pacific Time
        USA Dial-In #:+1.888.371.8922
        International Dial-In #:+1.617.224.4792
        Participant Passcode: 5837197

(Currently, Pacific Time is UTC-7, so that's 1200 Eastern, 1600 UTC, 1700
WET, 1800 CET.  As of Oct 30, the European time will be an hour earlier;
as of Nov 7 the American times will be an hour earlier relative to UTC.)

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad
moving hill.  Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes,
but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him
does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are
but memories of his girth and his majesty.  --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"