Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION REQUEST - zxx

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

> However, do keep in mind RFC 4646 section 2:
>
>   Language tags are used to help identify languages, whether spoken,
>   written, signed, or otherwise signaled, for the purpose of
>   communication.  This includes constructed and artificial languages,
>   but excludes languages not intended primarily for human
>   communication, such as programming languages.

I am keeping that in mind, but unfortunately I am also looking at 
draft-4646bis, Section 4.1 (4)(4), which -- despite the "out of scope" 
statement above -- goes on to recommend the use of 'zxx' for 
"programming source code."

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> asked Randy:

> Is it your opinion that indicating any script subtag (we must use 
> [zxx] if we are to tag these languages properly I understand; [zxx] 
> now means a bit more; it can be used any case a language tag is not 
> applicable) for programming languages would violate RFC 4646 
> insistence that tagging is primarily to indicate natural/human 
> language???  Thus it's not o.k. in any way to indicate the script of 
> programmatic languages?

I would have responded that:

1.  Using RFC 4646 language tags to tag programming language source code 
is out of scope.  (However, as shown above, this is no longer as clear 
as it once was.)

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION REQUEST - zxx

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug <at> ewellic.org>
> To: <ietf-languages <at> iana.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION REQUEST - zxx
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> 
> > However, do keep in mind RFC 4646 section 2:
> >
> >   Language tags are used to help identify languages, whether spoken,
> >   written, signed, or otherwise signaled, for the purpose of
> >   communication.  This includes constructed and artificial languages,
> >   but excludes languages not intended primarily for human
> >   communication, such as programming languages.
> 
> I am keeping that in mind, but unfortunately I am also looking at 
> draft-4646bis, Section 4.1 (4)(4), which -- despite the "out of scope" 
> statement above -- goes on to recommend the use of 'zxx' for 
> "programming source code."
...

If that text is being mis-read as a recommendation, we need to change it.
To me the text in question is clearly just a list of possible examples,
with no normative force.  After its sole normative sentence, the paragraph
continues with "Some examples might include".

But to the point of this thread, the 4.1 (4) begins:
   4.  [ISO639-2] has defined several codes included in the subtag

RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION REQUEST - zxx

> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:16 AM


> Assuming
> that "zxx" automagically means "zxx-Latn" would be wrong.

Seems pretty obvious.



Peter

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

RE: Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 6:36 PM


> If this situation is duly reported to the ietf-languages list -- that
> code element Y is being split off from existing code element X, and
> that
> X is therefore implicitly narrowed in scope

I'd like to comment on the perception of a split: In as much as, before coding [lyg], Lingngam did not have any
independent code element and so would seem to have been most closely represented by [kha], I initially
perceived the request as a split and argued against a narrowing of [kha]. (The text of ISO 639-3 does not
sanction changes that narrow scope of existing categories.) However, Joan made a (to me) convincing case
that it was not cost effective for us to treat this case this was. She differentiated between a "chipping
off" -- that is, something that might look like a split/narrowing -- from a true split/narrowing, a key
factor in the former being that there is no reason to assume that the existing category has actually been
used assuming that it encompassed the "chipped-off" variety being proposed for separate encoding. The
JAC agreed that, in such cases, it is much more cost effective to proceed on that basis, making a single
change to add the new category, than to assume it was encompassed in the existing category, which would
require us to create *two* new entries and either deprecate the existing one or reset its scope as either
macrolanguage or collection.

So, the JAC position is that this is not, in fact, to be considered a split, even though that is how change
request 2007-064 characterizes it. (Note that the two requested changes that *would* have made it a split
-- parts 1 and 3 -- were rejected; only part 2, the addition of [lyg] was adopted.)


I wouldn't have a problem with a comment on [kha] indicating that it doesn't include Lyngngam, but I don't
particularly see that as needed. And I certainly wouldn't expect the LST Reviewer or his assisting

RE: stq vs. frs

> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 6:39 PM

> See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90068 for
> Ethnologue's
> West Germanic family tree; however, it is well-known that the tree
> model fits
> West Germanic particularly poorly.

Note that this is not *Ethnologue's* West Germanic family tree -- in the sense of suggesting that the
analysis originates with Ethnologue: the classification is taken from the Oxford University Press
_International Encyclopedia of Linguistics_, 2003.

See the discussion under the sub-heading "Linguistic affiliation" at http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp#language_entries.

Peter

Re: stq vs. frs

Peter Constable scripsit:

> Note that this is not *Ethnologue's* West Germanic family tree -- in the
> sense of suggesting that the analysis originates with Ethnologue: the
> classification is taken from the Oxford University Press _International
> Encyclopedia of Linguistics_, 2003.

Understood.  Indeed, there is nothing controversial about it; it reflects
the oldest relationships between the languages, and not the ways in which
they have influenced each other since.  That's as much as can be expected
in such a tangled group.

--

-- 
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers            John Cowan
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is      cowan <at> ccil.org
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

Addition to ISO 639-3: [lyg]

Hi, I don't support a comment for [kha] either, but do for [lyg].

--C. E. Whitehead
Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com  I'd like to comment on the perception of a split: 
> In as much as, before coding [lyg], Lingngam did not have any  
> independent code element and so would seem to have been 
> most closely represented by [kha], 
. . .
>  She differentiated between a "chipping off" -- that is, something that 
> might look like a split/narrowing -- from a true split/narrowing, a 
> key factor in the former being that there is no reason to assume that 
> the existing category has actually been used assuming that 
> it encompassed the "chipped-off" variety being proposed for 
> separate encoding. 

> I wouldn't have a problem with a comment on [kha] indicating that it
>  doesn't include Lyngngam, but I don't particularly see that as needed. 

I think though that a comment that Lyngngam would have been formerly encoded as [kha] is appropriate in this
case.  If we all agree on it we can put it in without a lot of ordeal, in this one case at least.

> Peter

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com 

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION REQUEST - zxx

On 1 May 2008, at 8:05 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:

> 2.  "Indicating the script of programmatic languages" is a fairly  
> pointless exercise, a bit like classifying programming languages  
> based on the proportion of "real" English words like "for" and  
> "else" versus made-up pseudo-English words like "foreach" and  
> "elseif".  I ask again: what use would be made of this information?

or "fi" and "esac" which close previously opened "if" and "case"  
statements in some languages!

— Nicholas

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages