Subject: [Ltru] 13th-hour WG Last Call comments

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:26:23 -0700

Last week I received three editorial comments about draft-4645bis-07 
from someone whom I have not seen participate in the WG before.  Perhaps 
he was just a tourist perusing the list of current I-Ds and this one 
caught his eye.

In any case, the comments seemed reasonable enough (although I disagreed 
with one) and, for once, were based on reading the prose instead of just 
running the proposed Registry through a tool of some kind.  They can be 
summarized as follows:

1.  Change the quotational style to be consistently "British-style" 
rather than "American-style", with periods and commas outside the 
quotation marks when they are not part of the quote, as illustrated in 
this sentence.  Apparently the draft is inconsistent in this regard at 
present.  I agreed with this suggestion.

2.  Change the reference tags for ISO 639-3 data files like 
"[iso-639-3_20081023]" to something like "[ISO639-3_20081023]" for 
consistency with the style used for the tags for the actual standards 
(like "[ISO639-3]").  I disagreed because I felt this particular type of 
consistency was less important than keeping the actual, unmodified file 
names as the tags.

3.  Fix the rather broken reference text for "[UN_M.49]".  I agreed that 
one of the two references to "Standard Country or Area Codes for 
Statistical Use" should be removed.

As you can see, none of these changes is technical in nature.

Since this WG is once again going through a period of inactivity, does 
it make sense to discuss these suggested changes within the WG and/or 
start a new draft-4645bis-08 that incorporates some or all of them?

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:05:58 -0800

Hi -

As Co-chair...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:26 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] 13th-hour WG Last Call comments
>

IETF documents aren't consistent in this regard.  Note that the required
internet-draft boilerplate contains "American-style" quotes.  I don't know
whether fiddling with those would cause the id-nits processing to barf.
Though consistency is nice, I wouldn't worry too much about this, and
am happy leaving it to whatever makes both the editor and in-nits happy.

> consistency was less important than keeping the actual, unmodified file 

Agreed. I've wrestled with the xml2rfc to get tags more to my liking,
and concluded it wasn't worth the battle.

> Statistical Use" should be removed.

Yup.
 
> start a new draft-4645bis-08 that incorporates some or all of them?

I've been waiting for a response from co-chair Martin - I assume he's
overly busy.  Since the i-d submission window re-opens tomorrow,
let's submit the latest and greatest text of *BOTH* drafts, so
there will be no outstanding issues when we hand it off to the
IESG.

Also, it would be really really useful to have a "show of hands"
from the folks who have read recent versions of either or both
drafts.  You can reply to the list, or to me and Martin directly.

Randy

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:49:34 -0800

The 4646bis co-editors will submit a new draft-19 based on collected comments (including those below) sometime tomorrow. Most likely quoting styles and ISO references will remain as they are. We will fix the M.49 references.

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 Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 6:06 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] 13th-hour WG Last Call comments
> 
> Hi -
> 
> As Co-chair...
>

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:44:24 +0900

>As Co-chair...

[me too]

>> Statistical Use" should be removed.

I agree with Randy on the above points.

>overly busy.

Yes indeed.

>  Since the i-d submission window re-opens tomorrow,

This is what I wanted to propose, too. I know the IESG doesn't
like it if there are outstanding issues. The first thing you
hear is: "submit another draft, then we will look at it".

So Doug, Addison, Mark, please coordinate on this the way you
did for the last round. Thanks!

>drafts.  You can reply to the list, or to me and Martin directly.

Yes indeed.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:10:13 +0100

Some more very late comments (not that I want to delay matters):

1) The "language" entries are grouped by "two-letter codes" and
   "three-letter codes", which I don't find very helpful. I would
   find it better to group by "Scope" instead.

2) We have the entry:
     Type: language
    
Subtag: son
     Description: Songhai languages
     Added: 2005-10-16
     Suppress-Script: Latn
     Scope: collection
   To me, at least, it seems inappropriate to have a "Suppress-Script"
   for a collection code, even if the script given is used for all
   languages covered by the collection code. IIUC Zarma is a Songhai
   language, but there is no Suppress-Script noted for that language:
     Type: language
    Subtag: dje
    Description: Zarma
    Added: 2029-09-09

   The other similar case is the entry:
     Type: language
     Subtag: cpe
     Description: English-based creoles and pidgins
     Added: 2005-10-16
     Suppress-Script: Latn
     Scope: collection
   Again, I find it inappropriate to have a "Suppress-Script" for a
   collection code. I'm not sure why "son" and "cpe" ever got a
   "Suppress-Script".

    /kent k

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:23:06 -0700

>   find it better to group by "Scope" instead.

You mean you want to see all the language subtags with no Scope field 
first, followed by all the "collection" entries, then all the 
"macrolanguage" entries, and finally the four "special" subtags?  What 
would be the benefit of reorganizing the language entries, only to keep 
the entries for some of the best-known languages, such as Arabic and 
Chinese and Norwegian, separate from all the others?

Don't forget that Scope is an informative field meant to correlate 
exactly to the ISO 639-3 "scope of denotation," and can change at a 
moment's notice.

That said, I could see putting all the language subtags together in 
strict alphabetical order, intermingling the two- and three-letter 
subtags.

>   language, but there is no Suppress-Script noted for that language:

Once again, we pay the price for having agreed on Suppress-Script as a 
compromise.

Suppress-Script is an informative field (like Scope), meant to encourage 
tag producers to omit script subtags deemed on a one-by-one basis to be 
unnecessary, and to provide a hint to tag consumers trying to match a 
tag that has a script with one that does not.  There are lots and lots 
of inconsistencies in the way Suppress-Scripts have been doled out, and 
there always will be, because there will never be agreement about how to 
implement it.

>   collection code. I'm not sure why "son" and "cpe" ever got a

As above.

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:01:06 +0100

Den 2008-11-22 05.23, skrev "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>:

>   To
> me, at least, it seems inappropriate to have a "Suppress-Script"
>   for a
> collection code, even if the script given is used for all
>   languages
> covered by the collection code. IIUC Zarma is a Songhai
>   language, but
> there is no Suppress-Script noted for that language:
>     Type: language
>
> Subtag: dje
>    Description: Zarma
>    Added: 2029-09-09

Once again, we pay
> the price for having agreed on Suppress-Script as a
> 
compromise.

Suppress-Script is an informative field (like Scope), meant to
> encourage 
tag producers to omit script subtags deemed on a one-by-one basis
> to be 
of
> inconsistencies in the way Suppress-Scripts have been doled out, and 
there
> always will be, because there will never be agreement about how to 
implement
> it.

That may be. But the two I mentioned stand out as particularly
inappropriate.

    /kent k

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:19:11 -0800

I agree. I don't see any particular need to do either of these.

As far as the ordering, anyone can pull down the data file and reorder
to their heart's content.
And I agree with you on Suppress-Script.

Mark

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 20:23, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> You mean you want to see all the language subtags with no Scope field first,
> followed by all the "collection" entries, then all the "macrolanguage"
> entries, and finally the four "special" subtags?  What would be the benefit
> of reorganizing the language entries, only to keep the entries for some of
> the best-known languages, such as Arabic and Chinese and Norwegian, separate
> from all the others?
>
> Don't forget that Scope is an informative field meant to correlate exactly
> to the ISO 639-3 "scope of denotation," and can change at a moment's notice.
>
> That said, I could see putting all the language subtags together in strict
> alphabetical order, intermingling the two- and three-letter subtags.
>
>> 2) We have the entry:
>>    Type: language
>>
>> Subtag: son
> Suppress-Script is an informative field (like Scope), meant to encourage tag
> producers to omit script subtags deemed on a one-by-one basis to be
> unnecessary, and to provide a hint to tag consumers trying to match a tag
> that has a script with one that does not.  There are lots and lots of
> inconsistencies in the way Suppress-Scripts have been doled out, and there
> always will be, because there will never be agreement about how to implement
> it.
>

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:54:30 -0700

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

>> encourage tag producers to omit script subtags deemed on a one-by-one 
>> basis to be unnecessary, and to provide a hint to tag consumers 
>> trying to match a tag that has a script with one that does not. 
>> There are lots and lots of inconsistencies in the way 
>> Suppress-Scripts have been doled out, and there always will be, 
>> because there will never be agreement about how to implement it.
>

Just to make sure I understand correctly, your proposal is to remove the 
Suppress-Script fields from 'cpe' and 'son', not to add one to 'dje', 
correct?

This will also need to go to ietf-languages, of course.

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:58:56 +0100

> Suppress-Script fields from 'cpe' and 'son', not to add one to 'dje',

Correct.

    /kent k

> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  –
>

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:10:34 +0100

What is the supposed difference between
 hab I L hab  Hanoi Sign Language
and
 hos I L hos  Ho Chi Minh City Sign Language
? (The city names are just two different names for the same city.)

    /kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:36:47 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:10 PM

No, they're not.  Ho Chi Minh City (covering the area formerly known
as Sai Gon as well as Cho Lon) is in southern Viet Nam.  Ha Noi
(the nation's capitol) is in the north.   The spoken language is noticeably
different (far more so than, for example, differences between major
regional dialects of English, IMO), and there are cultural differences as well,
so a difference in sign languages wouldn't surprise me.

Randy.

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:31:02 +0100

Oops. Sorry.
/k