headers
Peter S Abrahams | 1 Jan 2009 12:43
Favicon

Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn

 LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM

   Name of requester          : Peter Abrahams

   E-mail address of requester: peter.abrahams <at> bloorresearch.com

   Tag to be registered       : he-Latn

   English name of language   : Hebrew transliterated into Latin text

   Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): Ivrit b'otiot latinit

   Reference to published description of the language (book or article): Romanization of Hebrew Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew and Summary of ANSI Z39.25-1975 standard: transliteration of Hebrew http://theochem.weizmann.ac.il/~comartin/ivrit/ansi.html 

   Any other relevant information: I have chosen he-Latn as it is in line with other transliterations such as az-Latn.


Peter Abrahams
Accessibility and Usability Practice Leader

Bloor Research
...optimise your IT investments

Mobile: +44 (0)7739 188 156
Tele: +44 (0)20 7435 3721
Office: +44 (0)20 7043 9750
Fax: +44 (0)20 7043 9748

Registered as 'Bloor Research International Ltd.' in England and Wales No. 05231477
Registered Office: 2nd Floor, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY
V.A.T. Registration No: 847 1953 95

The contents of this email and any attachments are sent for the personal attention of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this email and any attachments is unauthorised - please notify the sender by return and delete the message. Any representations or commitments expressed in this email are subject to contract. 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Phillips, Addison | 1 Jan 2009 18:34
Picon
Favicon

RE: Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn

Hi Peter,

 

There is no need to register this. For that matter, you can’t register full tags any longer (since the adoption of RFC4646). You can use the subtags ‘he’ and ‘Latn’ to form the tag you want, with no need to register anything.

 

Note that the grandfathered and redundant tags in the registry were created before the creation of the subtag registry (back in the day in which one had to register any complete tag that didn’t use the generative mechanism in language tags).

 

Addison

 

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Lab126

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter S Abrahams
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 3:44 AM
To: everson <at> evertype.com
Subject: Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn

 

 LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM

 

   Name of requester          : Peter Abrahams

 

   E-mail address of requester: peter.abrahams <at> bloorresearch.com

 

   Tag to be registered       : he-Latn

 

   English name of language   : Hebrew transliterated into Latin text

 

   Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): Ivrit b'otiot latinit

 

   Reference to published description of the language (book or article): Romanization of Hebrew Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew and Summary of ANSI Z39.25-1975 standard: transliteration of Hebrew http://theochem.weizmann.ac.il/~comartin/ivrit/ansi.html 

 

   Any other relevant information: I have chosen he-Latn as it is in line with other transliterations such as az-Latn.

 


Peter Abrahams
Accessibility and Usability Practice Leader

 

Bloor Research
...optimise your IT investments

 

Mobile:                       +44 (0)7739 188 156
Tele:              +44 (0)20 7435 3721
Office:                        +44 (0)20 7043 9750
Fax:                            +44 (0)20 7043 9748

 

Registered as 'Bloor Research International Ltd.' in England and Wales No. 05231477
Registered Office: 2nd Floor, 145-157 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY
V.A.T. Registration No: 847 1953 95

The contents of this email and any attachments are sent for the personal attention of the addressee(s) only and may be confidential. If you are not the intended addressee, any use, disclosure or copying of this email and any attachments is unauthorised - please notify the sender by return and delete the message. Any representations or commitments expressed in this email are subject to contract.

 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 1 Jan 2009 19:34
Picon

Re: Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn

Hi -

> From: "Peter S Abrahams" <peter.abrahams <at> bloor-research.com>
> To: <everson <at> evertype.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 3:43 AM
> Subject: Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn
>
>   LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
> 
>     Name of requester          : Peter Abrahams
> 
>     E-mail address of requester: peter.abrahams <at> bloorresearch.com
> 
>     Tag to be registered       : he-Latn
> 
>     English name of language   : Hebrew transliterated into Latin text
> 
>     Native name of language (transcribed into ASCII): Ivrit b'otiot  
> latinit
> 
>     Reference to published description of the language (book or  
> article): Romanization of Hebrew Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Hebrew 
>   and Summary of ANSI Z39.25-1975 standard: transliteration of Hebrew http://theochem.weizmann.ac.il/~comartin/ivrit/ansi.html
> 
>     Any other relevant information: I have chosen he-Latn as it is in  
> line with other transliterations such as az-Latn.
...

No registration is needed for he-Latn.  This is already permitted by the
"generative" use of subtags.  However, if you have a need to tag material
as being specifically in the Z39.25-1975 transliteration (in contrast to
other possible -Latn schemes) then it would make sense to request a
variant subtag for that purpose, e.g., he-Latn-z3925.

NB to rest of the list: let's not presume that the requester needs to
make such a distinction - let him make the determination himself, and
apply for the variant subtag if he has a need to make that distinction.

Randy
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Doug Ewell | 1 Jan 2009 19:19
Favicon

Language tag registration request for transliterated Hebrew he-Latn

There is no need to register a separate tag for "he-Latn".  You can use 
this tag today under RFC 4646 to indicate any Latin-script 
transliteration of Hebrew, because of the existence of the subtags 'he' 
and 'Latn'.  This was not the case in 2003, under RFC 3066, when 
"az-Latn" was registered.

--
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

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 48 comments |
headers
CE Whitehead | 3 Jan 2009 20:06
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

Doug, Thanks for your reply; it does seem that most English-based Creoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-based_creole_languages) are written using the Latin alphabet . . . but since there is no guarantee that they be written with this alphabet, I remain undecided.  However, since suppress-script is just a recommendation, I don't see a real problem with retaining it in these subtags (we can research the remaining subtags whenever to see if we should add it to any).
 
If we drop the suppress-script for these two subtags, I have--after reviewing again RFC4647--questions about 'backwards compatibility' (I may not understand filtering and scuh correctly--I've not given this draft the time that I've given other drafts):
 
(1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;
but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)
(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"? 
 
Is this right??
 
Thanks
 
--C. E. Whitehead 
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:14:50 -0700
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug <at> ewellic.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>
> > Whatever you do is fine, so long as you have backwards compatibility
> > (that is, 'cpe-Latn' will be backwards compatible with 'cpe' ?? I
> > should know whether it will be backwards compatible or not by now).
>
> RFC 4647 explains the concept of matching.
Thanks for the pointer; I know I have to read that RFC a bit more carefully sometime,
but here is my understanding:

(1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn" as well;
but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return "cpe-Latn-PG"?)
(2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return "cpe-Latn-PG"? 

 
Is this right??
>

> I don't agree with John that the presence of unwritten languages within
> the collection is an argument either for or against Suppress-Script.
> S-S says that *if* the content is written, it is almost certainly
> written in such-and-so script, so the script subtag should ordinarily be
> suppressed. But it doesn't say that the content must be written, or
> writable.
 
Thanks.  I agree with your interpretation here.
>

>
> > if left audio then these can be tagged with a script code of 'Zxxx'.
>
> Or not. There's no requirement that unwritten text must be tagged as
> such.
 
Thanks for making this clear.  Sorry.
>

> That wasn't his point. ISO 639 doesn't tell of which of its 7,600
> languages belong to collection X, so it's impossible to determine
> whether the S-S should apply to all of them.
 
So we are still left with the question as to whether suppress-script is applicable to these two subtags.
>
> Suppress-Script is by far the most overdebated topic on this list.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 3 Jan 2009 22:06

Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

CE Whitehead scripsit:

> (1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards
> compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn"
> as well;but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return
> "cpe-Latn-PG"?)

Basic filtering will not; extended filtering will.  That is part of the
point of extended filtering.

> (2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is
> requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return
> "cpe-Latn-PG"?

No.

--

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan <at> ccil.org
There are books that are at once excellent and boring.  Those that at
once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues.  --Somerset Maugham
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
CE Whitehead | 4 Jan 2009 23:43
Picon
Favicon

RE: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

Thanks John; that information is helpful.
 
So extended filtering is the only option for compatibility.
 
I still need to research which search engines use extended filtering, however.
 
Maybe Frank (Ellerman) will have something to say on this; can we just wait for his input? --Or else for some  feedback from people who know more about the search engines. 
 
Thanks again.
 
Best wishes,
 
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com




> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:06:04 -0500
> From: cowan <at> ccil.org
>
> CE Whitehead scripsit:
>
> > (1), basic and extended filtering should normally be backwards
> > compatible--that is a request for "cpe" should yield "cpe-Latn"
> > as well;but what about a request for "cpe-PG" (will it return
> > "cpe-Latn-PG"?)
>
> Basic filtering will not; extended filtering will. That is part of the
> point of extended filtering.
Thanks very much. 
So this is the only way these are backwards compatible.  I'd have to learn a bit more about the various applications and types of filtering used.
>
> > (2), lookup type filtering, on the other hand, when "cpe-PG" is
> > requested, will return "cpe;" but will it return "cpe-Latn" or return
> > "cpe-Latn-PG"?
>
> No.
 
Oops.
>
> --
> John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan <at> ccil.org
> There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at
> once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George
> Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John Cowan | 5 Jan 2009 01:19

Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

CE Whitehead scripsit:

> So extended filtering is the only option for compatibility. I
> still need to research which search engines use extended filtering,

Search engines don't use language tags at all, except internally;
at the scale of the Web, it would be reckless to assume that
documents are correctly tagged.

--

-- 
What asininity could I have uttered     John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org>
that they applaud me thus?              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Phocion, Greek orator
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
CE Whitehead | 5 Jan 2009 18:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

Again, thanks for the information!  I meant to say browsers, what filtering algorithms do the four or five most common browsers use to match language tags? 
 
Thanks!
 
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:19:43 -0500
> From: John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org>

>
> CE Whitehead scripsit:
>
> > So extended filtering is the only option for compatibility. I
> > still need to research which search engines use extended filtering,
>
> Search engines don't use language tags at all, except internally;
> at the scale of the Web, it would be reckless to assume that
> documents are correctly tagged.
>
> --
> What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org>
> that they applaud me thus? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> --Phocion, Greek orator
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Phillips, Addison | 5 Jan 2009 19:12
Picon
Favicon

RE: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

Browsers don’t do matching either. In a browser you can set your language preferences. Some web sites will look at that information to determine the language or locale of the content to serve back to you (using a matching algorithm).

 

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Lab126

 

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

 

From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:51 AM
To: ietf-languages <at> iana.org
Subject: Re: Proposed modified records for 'cpe' and 'son'

 

Again, thanks for the information!  I meant to say browsers, what filtering algorithms do the four or five most common browsers use to match language tags? 
 
Thanks!
 
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:19:43 -0500
> From: John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org>

>
> CE Whitehead scripsit:
>
> > So extended filtering is the only option for compatibility. I
> > still need to research which search engines use extended filtering,
>
> Search engines don't use language tags at all, except internally;
> at the scale of the Web, it would be reckless to assume that
> documents are correctly tagged.
>
> --
> What asininity could I have uttered John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org>
> that they applaud me thus? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> --Phocion, Greek orator
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages <at> alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane