Subject: [Ltru] text proposition for extlang filtering by rfc 4647

From: Nicolas Krebs <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 19:25:13 +0200

Hello, 

Below is a proposition of me to solve the issue of removing use of 
"Extended Language Subtags" in RFC 4646 bis 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13#section-2.2.2 
urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13 
in favour of direct use of each language code. Please remember that I 
have missed or forgot the thread discussion which have reached to 
working group consensus about this remove. This is a draft. The 
wording is likely bad. Please give feedback. 

It is supposed to be an addendum of RFC 4647 urn:ietf:4647 section 
3.4 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.4 before "Default Values" 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.4.1. I don't know how it could 
be published (rfc 4647 errata? rfc 4647 bis? working group note such 
in W3C http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#q75 ? RFC 
4646 bis updating RFC 4647?). 

begin addendum 

If no tag matches the language priority list, application MAY try/try 
find/search the macrolanguage (as defined by [ISO 639-3] 
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/scope.asp#M 
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/scope.asp#C 
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp 
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13 ) of the remaining primary language subtag. 

Examples: 
1 cmn -> zh
2 hsb -> wen
3 nb -> no
4 src -> sc

Interoperability issue
other macrolanguage lookup enginered/developed by/for one 
application SHOULD NOT be assumed interoperable and SHOULD 
not be shared between application (see 
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13 section 4.5). 

Examples: 
1 zdj -> swb
3 gsw -> gem
2 gsw-fr -> fr
4 sr -> sh

end addendum 

Rationale: 

"Extlang issues" thread 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg09788.html . 

When RFC 4647 was published, the working group was assuming use 
of "Extended Language Subtags" for RFC 4646 bis (see RFC 4646 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646#section-2.2.2 ), that's why RFC 4647 do 
not mention fallback on macrolanguage, since zh-cmn -> zh does not 
need specific pipeline. 

If BCP 47 do not trust ISO 639-3 to write aa-bbb with right 
macrolangage prefix, maybe BCP 47 could trust ISO 639-3 to fallback 
from bbb to macrolangage tag. 

I have previously stated about Comorian. 

Although "sh" has been deprecated, it is still in the language subtags 
registry, and "Serbo-Croatian" name is still used. 

draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-02 section 9.1 alinéa 3 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-02#section-9.1 
aka "send text". 

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 17:58:03 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Nicolas Krebs

> from bbb to macrolangage tag.

This doesn't make any sense to me. ISO 639-3 provides a code table of alpha-3 IDs, and a table of macro-language mappings. It does not specify any scheme for creating multi-part tags, or for doing fallback mapping.

Peter