LTRU Language Tag Registry Update working group (3066bis)

Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Hello Addison,

Many thanks for your work. I have looked at the changes,
see below for comments.

At 03:59 09/01/31, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>All,
>
>I have just posted a draft-21 editor's copy on Inter-Locale. This has NOT 
>been submitted to the IETF yet, per the co-chair's instructions. This 
>version incorporates a few errata but not yet the reference to the Awfully 
>New IPR RFC.
>
>   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.html
>   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt
>   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.xml

I have looked at this and at the diff, and have run the idnits tool.

However, we now have an informative reference in a normative sentence:

       E.  UN numeric codes and ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes for countries
           or areas listed as eligible for registration in Section 4 of
           [RFC4645] but not presently registered MAY be entered into
           the IANA registry via the process described in Section 3.5.
           Once registered, these codes MAY be used to form language
           tags.

My understanding from previous discussions (both Randy and I had
the same idea) was that for this instance of referencing [RFC4645],

(Continue reading)

headers

Phillips, Addison | 2 Feb 05:39

Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Hello Martin,

Thanks for the note.

> However, we now have an informative reference in a normative
> sentence:
> 
>        E.  UN numeric codes and ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes for
> countries
>            or areas listed as eligible for registration in Section
> 4 of
>            [RFC4645] but not presently registered MAY be entered
> into
>            the IANA registry via the process described in Section
> 3.5.
>            Once registered, these codes MAY be used to form
> language
>            tags.

This is why the reference *was* normative, nu? 

> 
> My understanding from previous discussions (both Randy and I had
> the same idea) was that for this instance of referencing [RFC4645],
> we would replace it inline with the only instance left, resulting
> in something like:
> 
>        E.  The UN numeric code or ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (once
> assigned)
>            for the Channel Islands MAY be entered into the IANA

(Continue reading)

headers

Lang Gérard | 2 Feb 08:44

Re: Ltru Digest, Vol 48, Issue 1

I agree with the proposition of John Cowan and Doug Ewell.
Cordialement.
Gérard LANG 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] De la part de ltru-request <at> ietf.org
Envoyé : dimanche 1 février 2009 21:00
À : ltru <at> ietf.org
Objet : Ltru Digest, Vol 48, Issue 1

Send Ltru mailing list submissions to
	ltru <at> ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ltru-request <at> ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ltru-owner <at> ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Ltru digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Preferred-Value for YU? (John Cowan)
   2. Re: Preferred-Value for YU? (Doug Ewell)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Continue reading)

headers

Debbie Garside | 2 Feb 11:05

Re: Preferred-Value for YU?

Hi Doug

I am not sure that I like the thought of deleting historical information.  I
do see where you are coming from but, nevertheless, are we going to be
missing a link in the chain by deleting "CS" from "YU"?

I hate deleting information from databases! 

What I would like to see is information added to the PV field for "YU" (
such as ":2006-10-05") to indicate when "CS" became invalid as the PV.
However, I am, assuming that this would entail an update to 4646bis and is,
therefore, unlikely to be incorporated at this time.

I would ask that you be careful to not inadvertently delete some of the dots
that join the Registry.  However, I cannot, on this fine, cold, soon to be
snowy, Monday morning, think of a valid reason why other than on principle -
I'll try another coffee and maybe write again. 

+1 to adding John's comment though.

Best

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug
Ewell
Sent: 31 January 2009 21:20
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Preferred-Value for YU?

(Continue reading)

headers

Debbie Garside | 2 Feb 11:10

Re: Lowercase language names and the Registry

Addison wrote:

>> So… to be clear, I favor putting *exactly* what ISO 639 has into the initial registry unless it conflicts with a specific provision of 4646bis

Debbie

From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: 30 January 2009 18:15
To: Gerard Meijssen; CE Whitehead
Cc: ltru <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Lowercase language names and the Registry

The RFC says quite clearly that the ‘Description’ fields in the registry exist only to provide for unambiguous identification of subtag meaning. They should not be taken to be the localized name or in any particular language. Mainly the registry mirrors whatever one of the ISO groups has put into their standards. 4646bis allows for some cleanup/editing by the LSR in cases where the name has some sort of formatting problem (hence Doug’s inquiry). This is different from the goals of CLDR. People can and should rely on CLDR to be correct in presentation. But we have already warned users NOT to rely on the description fields in the registry.

Note that the registration process exists to allow users of the registry to correct or add additional descriptive material. My tendency is to favor mirroring exactly what ISO 639 has in the “initial” registry. If someone feels strongly about it, they can petition ietf-languages <at> to change it. That’s what the process is for and I would tend to support corrections that native language speakers feel strongly about.

So… to be clear, I favor putting *exactly* what ISO 639 has into the initial registry unless it conflicts with a specific provision of 4646bis.

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:07 AM
To: CE Whitehead
Cc: ltru <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Lowercase language names and the Registry

Hoi,
If the list is ony to be used as a list with a local application, I agree. When people want to use lists like this or the CLDR language list, they depend on the information to be right. It is not and people do.
Thanks,
Gerard

2009/1/30 CE Whitehead <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com>

Hi. I think Leif and Doug get my vote here.

In a list I'd feel comfortable 'title-casing' the first word in French (a language in which language names are also normally 'lower-cased').

But I'm not a native speaker.

(NOTE: I found different conventions regarding titles online:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=histoire+du+francais&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=francais&btnG=Search [these are not lists however, just titles].

when a French title appears on a book in the U.S. market, every word on the book may be title-cased:

http://shopping.msn.com/prices/allons-y-le-francais-par-etapes-with-audio-cd/itemid25043275/?itemtext=itemname:allons-y-le-francais-par-etapes-with-audio-cd

Wikipedia has two conventions for lists in French it seems?:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_langues_par_ordre_alphab%C3%A9tique

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_langues_officielles

in one the first word, whether the language name or a definite article preceding the name, is 'upper cased'; in the other list the names are almost all 'lower cased')

Thanks.

--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar <at> hotmail.com

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform.no>
To: Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>

Doug Ewell 2009-01-30 07.08:

So far so good, but then the January 26 revision came along and lowercased the Finnish and Swedish names, as the requestor originally suggested (see http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2008-028.pdf):

   Finland-Swedish Sign Language
   finlandssvenskt teckenspråk
   suomenruotsalainen viittomakieli

[...]

I propose that for draft-4645bis and the Language Subtag Registry generally, we introduce a rule that Description fields for language subtags be modified from the ISO-provided name if necessary to ensure they begin with a capital letter, unless the lowercase letter is considered necessary to spell the name correctly (as it is in "tlhIngan-Hol"). This is consistent with draft-4646bis, Section 3.1.5, which allows Description fields to be "edited or modified" from the ISO rendering.

Unless someone objects on-list to this rather pedantic suggestion, it will be added to the next draft-4645bis.

In my view it is defendable to let language names begin with upper-case letter even in Scandinavian languages, as long as the names appears in a list -aka "menu" - as opposed to in a comma separated line of words. Hence, I'm ok with it.

leif halvard silli

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1924 - Release Date: 29/01/2009 17:57

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1929 - Release Date: 01/02/2009 18:02

headers

Mark Davis | 2 Feb 16:53

Re: Preferred-Value for YU?

I agree about the comment. (Ideally we'd do the same for the other cases like that.)

Mark

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:31, John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org> wrote:

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> In draft-4645bis, should we modify the record for subtag YU by removing
> the P-V of CS, since CS is itself deprecated with no P-V?

+1 for removing CS.

I'd propose adding a comment something like "See BA, HR, ME, MK, RS, or SI."

--
John Cowan cowan <at> ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
This great college [Trinity], of this ancient university [Cambridge],
has seen some strange sights. It has seen Wordsworth drunk and Porson
sober. And here am I, a better poet than Porson, and a better scholar
than Wordsworth, somewhere betwixt and between. --A.E. Housman

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

headers

CE Whitehead | 2 Feb 19:38

Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Addison; Are we taking substantial editorial corrections yet? Or are we waiting for the copyright work around?

If we are taking substantial changes, I have one (I also have a few glaring typos):

http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt

4.1.1 par 5, last sentence

{ ORIGINAL TEXT }

"For example, Romanian ('ro') and
   Moldavian ('mo') do not share a macrolanguage, but are far more
   closely related to each other than Cantonese ('yue') and Wu ('wuu') ,
   which do share a macrolanguage."

{! COMMENT: the [ro] [mo] example is a bit of a problem as one of the subtags has now been deprecated; 'pes' and 'prs', Eastern (Dari) and Western Farsi, would be better examples I think}

Thanks.

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

headers

Kent Karlsson | 2 Feb 21:25

Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Well, no, because pes and prs already share a macrolanguage, namely fas. See http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp (as well as our own draft registry update).

But I agree that the example you point at is no longer a good one. I can't really give another example (but I wonder how closely related the Frisian languages are, but they don't share a macrolanguage code...)

/kent k

Den 2009-02-02 19.38, skrev "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com>:

Addison; Are we taking substantial editorial corrections yet? Or are we waiting for the copyright work around?

If we are taking substantial changes, I have one (I also have a few glaring typos):

http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt

4.1.1 par 5, last sentence

{ ORIGINAL TEXT }

"For example, Romanian ('ro') and
   Moldavian ('mo') do not share a macrolanguage, but are far more
   closely related to each other than Cantonese ('yue') and Wu ('wuu') ,
   which do share a macrolanguage."

{! COMMENT: the [ro] [mo] example is a bit of a problem as one of the subtags has now been deprecated; 'pes' and 'prs', Eastern (Dari) and Western Farsi, would be better examples I think}

Thanks.

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

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

headers

Randy Presuhn | 2 Feb 21:42

Re: Preferred-Value for YU?

Hi -

As co-chair -
I'd strongly prefer that "adjustments" to specific entries be handled
on ietf-languages <at> iana.org rather than in the ltru WG.  My reasoning:
  (1) It's time to finish gilding this lily.
  (2) The division of labor between the two groups gives questions of
      form and process to ltru, and of content to ietf-languages.

The ONLY reason for "tweaking" an entry *here* that I could support on
this list at this time is that our processes would not permit the change
to be made via ietf-languages <at> iana.org.

Randy

> From: "Mark Davis" <mark <at> macchiato.com>
> To: "John Cowan" <cowan <at> ccil.org>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>; "Doug Ewell" <doug <at> ewellic.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 7:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Preferred-Value for YU?
>
> I agree about the comment. (Ideally we'd do the same for the other cases
> like that.)
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:31, John Cowan <cowan <at> ccil.org> wrote:
> 
> > Doug Ewell scripsit:
> >
> > > In draft-4645bis, should we modify the record for subtag YU by removing
> > > the P-V of CS, since CS is itself deprecated with no P-V?
> >
> > +1 for removing CS.
> >
> > I'd propose adding a comment something like "See BA, HR, ME, MK, RS, or
> > SI."
> >
> > --
> > John Cowan    cowan <at> ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan<http://ccil.org/%7Ecowan>
> > This great college [Trinity], of this ancient university [Cambridge],
> > has seen some strange sights. It has seen Wordsworth drunk and Porson
> > sober. And here am I, a better poet than Porson, and a better scholar
> > than Wordsworth, somewhere betwixt and between.  --A.E. Housman
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru <at> ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

headers

Randy Presuhn | 2 Feb 21:51

Re: Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

Although the Romanian / Moldavian case has been overtaken by
events, it still makes the point effectively.  It's probably the most widely-known
and least-contested such case.  Consequently, I'd prefer leaving the
text as-is.

Randy

> From: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 <at> comhem.se>
> To: "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com>; <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 12:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Editor's copy of draft-4646bis updated...
>
> Well, no, because pes and prs already share a macrolanguage, namely fas. See
> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/macrolanguages.asp (as well as our own draft
> registry update).
> 
> But I agree that the example you point at is no longer a good one. I can't
> really give another example (but I wonder how closely related the Frisian
> languages are, but they don't share a macrolanguage code...)
> 
>     /kent k
> 
> 
> 
> Den 2009-02-02 19.38, skrev "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar <at> hotmail.com>:
> 
> > Addison; Are we taking substantial editorial corrections yet?  Or are we
> > waiting for the copyright work around?
> >  
> > If we are taking substantial changes, I have one (I also have a few glaring
> > typos):
> >  
> > http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-21.txt
> > 
> > 4.1.1 par 5, last sentence
> >  
> > { ORIGINAL TEXT }
> >  
> > "For example, Romanian ('ro') and
> >    Moldavian ('mo') do not share a macrolanguage, but are far more
> >    closely related to each other than Cantonese ('yue') and Wu ('wuu') ,
> >    which do share a macrolanguage."
> > 
> > {! COMMENT:  the [ro] [mo] example is a bit of a problem as one of the subtags
> > has now been deprecated; 'pes' and 'prs', Eastern (Dari) and Western Farsi,
> > would be better examples I think}
> >  
> > Thanks.
> >  
> > --C. E. Whitehead
> > cewcathar <at> hotmail.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru <at> ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

4	December 2011
17	August 2011
145	July 2011
14	June 2011
1	May 2011
2	January 2011
1	November 2010
2	August 2010
1	July 2010
7	June 2010
1	May 2010
2	March 2010
5	January 2010
14	December 2009
10	November 2009
7	October 2009
13	September 2009
34	August 2009
88	July 2009
346	June 2009
208	May 2009
186	April 2009
54	March 2009
287	February 2009
25	January 2009
116	December 2008
122	November 2008
181	October 2008
44	September 2008
30	August 2008
341	July 2008
500	June 2008
910	May 2008
67	April 2008
42	March 2008
277	February 2008
122	January 2008
324	December 2007
173	November 2007
176	October 2007
117	September 2007
125	August 2007
181	July 2007
201	June 2007
153	May 2007
335	April 2007
374	March 2007
137	February 2007
116	January 2007
220	December 2006
242	November 2006
395	October 2006
667	September 2006
145	August 2006
89	July 2006
134	June 2006
64	May 2006
63	April 2006
158	March 2006
289	February 2006
46	January 2006
108	December 2005
218	November 2005
145	October 2005
316	September 2005
427	August 2005
597	July 2005
545	June 2005
513	May 2005
996	April 2005
430	March 2005

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28