RE: Updated draft-4646bis...

Addison wrote:

> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.

I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a contradiction in
terms.  I would propose one of the following:

---
A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.

A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet meaningless
in terms of its attributes. For example, ... 

---

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison <at> yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: 31 July 2007 16:52
> To: Marion Gunn
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
> 
> Marion Gunn wrote:
>  >
>  > However, here goes with one more attempt:
>  >

Re: Updated draft-4646bis...

In that case, "well-formed" (although I see nothing wrong with  
Addison's latest version, since even a bank account number can be, at  
the same time, both "valid" and "meaningless" if no actual bank  
account exists).
mg
On 1 Aug 2007, at 12:43, Debbie Garside:

> Addison wrote:
>
>
>> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.
>>
>
> I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a  
> contradiction in
> terms.  I would propose one of the following:
>
> ---
> A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.
>
> A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet  
> meaningless
> in terms of its attributes. For example, ...
>
> ---
>
> Best
>
> Debbie
>

RE: Updated draft-4646bis...

I agree!

David

 _____________________________________________________

Dr David Dalby 
The Linguasphere Observatory
Hebron
Whitland
Wales
SA34 0XT

-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk] 
Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44
To: addison <at> yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

Addison wrote:

> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.

I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a contradiction in
terms.  I would propose one of the following:

---
A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.

RE: Updated draft-4646bis...

Why not(?):

A langtag may be formally valid but remain unrealized in meaning, e.g. ....

-----Original Message-----
From: David Dalby [mailto:daviddalby <at> linguasphere.info] 
Sent: 01 August 2007 16:33
To: debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk; addison <at> yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

I agree!

David

 _____________________________________________________

Dr David Dalby 
The Linguasphere Observatory
Hebron
Whitland
Wales
SA34 0XT

-----Original Message-----
From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk] 
Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44
To: addison <at> yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

The third level of conformance (Was: Updated draft-4646bis...

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:43:40PM +0100,
 Debbie Garside <debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote 
 a message of 83 lines which said:

> I would propose one of the following:
> 
> ---
> A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.
> 
> A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet meaningless
> in terms of its attributes. For example, ... 

Sorry, neither of these sentences is correct in the context of
4646bis-07.

Being "well-formed" and being "valid" are two different things
(section 2.2.9 of 4646bis-07). Thus saying "A tag can be well formed
in terms of syntax, and thus valid" is wrong.

And the first sentence is not strong enough. ar-Cyrl-CO is well-formed
but it is also valid (in the 4646bis-07 sense of the word, defined in
section 2.2.9). 

The discussion is how we should label the informal "third level",
after well-formedness and validity. Meaningfulness? Reality? 

Re: Updated draft-4646bis...

You have to read the document. The terms "valid" and "well-formed" have 
a different meaning in the context of RFC 4646/4646bis. The term "valid" 
was chosen carefully in this context.

Mark and others are correct that every tag has *a* meaning (we even 
spell out the one for the "meaningless" tag in the example). But that 
does not mean that every tag is *meaningful*.

How about this version instead:

<t>Validity of a tag is not everything. While every valid tag has a 
meaning, it might not represent any real language usage. This is 
unavoidable in a system in which subtags can be combined freely. For 
example, tags such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in 
Colombia ) or "tlh-Kore-AQ-fonipa" (Klingon, Korean script, as used in 
Antarctica, IPA phonetic transcription) are both valid and unlikely to 
represent a useful combination of language attributes.</t>

Addison

David Dalby wrote:
> I agree!
> 
> David
> 
>  _____________________________________________________
>  
> Dr David Dalby 
> The Linguasphere Observatory
> Hebron

Re: Updated draft-4646bis...

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Language Tag Registry Update Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Tags for Identifying Languages
	Author(s)	: A. Phillips, M. Davis
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt
	Pages		: 74
	Date		: 2007-8-1
	
This document describes the structure, content, construction, and
   semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
   indicate the language used in an information object.  It also
   describes how to register values for use in language tags and the
   creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv <at> ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

RE: Updated draft-4646bis...

RE: Updated draft-4646bis...

I still don't think it sounds right  but I take the point made about well
formed and valid.

How about:

The syntax of a language sub tag is such that it is possible to create a
valid subtag where the sum of its component attributes may not represent a
meaningful combination within actual language usage.  For example, etc.

Or

Validity of a language subtag does not necessarily make it meaningful. A
subtag can be valid in terms of syntax yet meaningless in terms of real
language usage. For example, etc.

Best

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison <at> yahoo-inc.com] 
> Sent: 01 August 2007 16:52
> To: David Dalby
> Cc: debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Marion Gunn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
> 
> You have to read the document. The terms "valid" and 
> "well-formed" have a different meaning in the context of RFC 
> 4646/4646bis. The term "valid" 
> was chosen carefully in this context.
> 
> Mark and others are correct that every tag has *a* meaning 
> (we even spell out the one for the "meaningless" tag in the 
> example). But that does not mean that every tag is *meaningful*.
> 
> How about this version instead:
> 
> 
> <t>Validity of a tag is not everything. While every valid tag 
> has a meaning, it might not represent any real language 
> usage. This is unavoidable in a system in which subtags can 
> be combined freely. For example, tags such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" 
> (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia ) or 
> "tlh-Kore-AQ-fonipa" (Klingon, Korean script, as used in 
> Antarctica, IPA phonetic transcription) are both valid and 
> unlikely to represent a useful combination of language attributes.</t>
> 
> Addison
> 
> David Dalby wrote:
> > I agree!
> > 
> > David
> > 
> >  _____________________________________________________
> >  
> > Dr David Dalby
> > The Linguasphere Observatory
> > Hebron
> > Whitland
> > Wales
> > SA34 0XT
> >  
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie <at> ictmarketing.co.uk]
> > Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44
> > To: addison <at> yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'
> > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
> > 
> > Addison wrote:
> > 
> >> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.
> > 
> > I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a 
> > contradiction in terms.  I would propose one of the following:
> > 
> > ---
> > A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.
> > 
> > A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet 
> > meaningless in terms of its attributes. For example, ...
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Debbie
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison <at> yahoo-inc.com]
> >> Sent: 31 July 2007 16:52
> >> To: Marion Gunn
> >> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> >> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
> >>
> >> Marion Gunn wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  > However, here goes with one more attempt:
> >>  >
> >>  > "For example, although a tag such as 'ar-Cyrl-CO' 
> (Arabic, as used 
> >> in  > Columbia,  > written in Cyrillic script) is valid, 
> it is [most] 
> >> unlikely to be of  > use, because  > such combination of 
> attributes 
> >> is unlikely to occur in actual language  > use."
> >>  >
> >>
> >> I note that it is useful to look at the actual editor's copy when 
> >> suggesting minor editorial changes. Upon reflection, I found the 
> >> current sentence to be a bit of a run-on. I've taken your 
> suggestion 
> >> of 'unlikely' and edited further such that the paragraph now reads:
> >>
> >> <t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag can be valid yet 
> >> meaningless. This is unavoidable with a generative system like the 
> >> language subtag mechanism. For example, a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO"
> >> (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is perfectly valid. 
> >> However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag, as it represents an 
> >> unlikely combination of language attributes that is probably 
> >> unrelated to any real language usage.</t>
> >>
> >> After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on draft-08. 
> >> I'm always happy to consider editorial changes that 
> improve the text.
> >>
> >> Addison
> >>
> >> --
> >> Addison Phillips
> >> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> >> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
> >>
> >> Internationalization is an architecture.
> >> It is not a feature.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ltru mailing list
> >> Ltru <at> ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru <at> ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
> 
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
> 
> 
>