Randy Presuhn | 19 Oct 20:07 2009
Picon

Fw: [rt.amsl.com #20489] ltru WG milestone completion

Hi -

An update.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Cindy Morgan via RT" <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>
> To: <randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 11:05 AM
> Subject: [rt.amsl.com #20489] ltru WG milestone completion 
>
> Hi Randy,
> 
> These milestones have been marked as completed on the LTRU WG charter
> page, as requested.
> 
> Best regards,
> Cindy
> 
> 
> On Fri Oct 16 22:01:25 2009, randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com wrote:
> > Hi -
> > 
> > Two milestones from the ltru WG charter have been completed:
> > 
> > Mar 2008    Submit registry procedure update draft for IETF Last Call  
> > Mar 2008    Submit registry data update draft for IETF Last Call  
> > 
> > In each case, the IESG last call announcement went out on April 9th, 2009.
(Continue reading)

"Martin J. Dürst" | 30 Oct 10:29 2009
Picon

Re: font features in CSS

Hello Adam,

[cc to IETF LTRU WG]

On 2009/10/30 16:12, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote:

> III. LANGUAGE CLASSIFICATION
>
> All OpenType Layout features are assigned in a context of specific
> script and language system. While the assignment of script is easy (the
> engine can determine from the Unicode string which script a certain
> character belongs to, and from there it can pick the appropriate
> OpenType script branch to apply the features for), the language system
> is trickier.
>
> As you can see from
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/languagetags.htm
> OpenType uses a list of language systems that do not have a 1:1
> correspondence with any of the ISO 639 standards. In OpenType 1.6 (at
> the link above), an informational mapping of OpenType language system
> tags and "best matches" in the ISO 639 standards has been provided. It
> is quite obvious that a web browser that applies OpenType Layout
> features should observe the HTML "lang" attribute and, if present, apply
> the appropriate features from the particular language system branch in a
> font (and only if absent, apply the features from the Default language
> system within a script branch). But it might be worth considering to add
> a low-level CSS access mechanism to allow users to choose a specific
> OpenType language system, because some ISO 639 codes can map to several
> OpenType language systems, e.g.
>
(Continue reading)

Mark Davis ☕ | 30 Oct 15:49 2009

Re: font features in CSS

Agreed.

I'm guessing he meant zh-Latn-pinyin

(http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry)

Mark


On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 02:29, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
Hello Adam,

[cc to IETF LTRU WG]

On 2009/10/30 16:12, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote:

III. LANGUAGE CLASSIFICATION

All OpenType Layout features are assigned in a context of specific
script and language system. While the assignment of script is easy (the
engine can determine from the Unicode string which script a certain
character belongs to, and from there it can pick the appropriate
OpenType script branch to apply the features for), the language system
is trickier.

As you can see from
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/languagetags.htm
OpenType uses a list of language systems that do not have a 1:1
correspondence with any of the ISO 639 standards. In OpenType 1.6 (at
the link above), an informational mapping of OpenType language system
tags and "best matches" in the ISO 639 standards has been provided. It
is quite obvious that a web browser that applies OpenType Layout
features should observe the HTML "lang" attribute and, if present, apply
the appropriate features from the particular language system branch in a
font (and only if absent, apply the features from the Default language
system within a script branch). But it might be worth considering to add
a low-level CSS access mechanism to allow users to choose a specific
OpenType language system, because some ISO 639 codes can map to several
OpenType language systems, e.g.

                        (OT)    (ISO)
Chinese Hong Kong       ZHH     zho
Chinese Phonetic        ZHP     zho
Chinese Simplified      ZHS     zho
Chinese Traditional     ZHT     zho

HTML lang and XML xml:lang use BCP 47 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47, formerly RFC 1766/3066/4646) tags, not ISO 639 directly. BCP 47 uses two-letter codes (i.e. 'zh') and not three-letter codes (i.e. 'zho') when two-letter codes are available. Also, BCP 47 has facilities for indicating Region (country,...) with two-letter codes and for indicating script with four-letter codes. So the above list should be changed to:

                       (OT)    (BCP 47)
Chinese Hong Kong       ZHH     zh-HK
Chinese Phonetic        ZHP     **
Chinese Simplified      ZHS     zh-Hans
Chinese Traditional     ZHT     zh-Hant

** not sure what's meant by Chinese Phonetic, may be zh-Latn (Latin transcription) or zh-Bopo (Bopomofo)?

Regards,   Martin.

--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

<div>
<p>Agreed.<br><br>I'm guessing he meant zh-Latn-pinyin<br><br>(<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry">http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry</a>)<br><br clear="all">Mark<br><br><br></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 02:29, "Martin J. D&uuml;rst" <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
Hello Adam,<br><br>
[cc to IETF LTRU WG]<br><br>
On 2009/10/30 16:12, Adam Twardoch (List) wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
III. LANGUAGE CLASSIFICATION<br><br>
All OpenType Layout features are assigned in a context of specific<br>
script and language system. While the assignment of script is easy (the<br>
engine can determine from the Unicode string which script a certain<br>
character belongs to, and from there it can pick the appropriate<br>
OpenType script branch to apply the features for), the language system<br>
is trickier.<br><br>
As you can see from<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/languagetags.htm" target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/languagetags.htm</a><br>
OpenType uses a list of language systems that do not have a 1:1<br>
correspondence with any of the ISO 639 standards. In OpenType 1.6 (at<br>
the link above), an informational mapping of OpenType language system<br>
tags and "best matches" in the ISO 639 standards has been provided. It<br>
is quite obvious that a web browser that applies OpenType Layout<br>
features should observe the HTML "lang" attribute and, if present, apply<br>
the appropriate features from the particular language system branch in a<br>
font (and only if absent, apply the features from the Default language<br>
system within a script branch). But it might be worth considering to add<br>
a low-level CSS access mechanism to allow users to choose a specific<br>
OpenType language system, because some ISO 639 codes can map to several<br>
OpenType language systems, e.g.<br><br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (OT) &nbsp; &nbsp;(ISO)<br>
Chinese Hong Kong &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHH &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Phonetic &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHP &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Simplified &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHS &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Traditional &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHT &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
HTML lang and XML xml:lang use BCP 47 (<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47</a>, formerly RFC 1766/3066/4646) tags, not ISO 639 directly. BCP 47 uses two-letter codes (i.e. 'zh') and not three-letter codes (i.e. 'zho') when two-letter codes are available. Also, BCP 47 has facilities for indicating Region (country,...) with two-letter codes and for indicating script with four-letter codes. So the above list should be changed to:<br><br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(OT) &nbsp; &nbsp;(BCP 47)<br>
Chinese Hong Kong &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHH &nbsp; &nbsp; zh-HK<br>
Chinese Phonetic &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHP &nbsp; &nbsp; **≤br>
Chinese Simplified &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHS &nbsp; &nbsp; zh-Hans<br>
Chinese Traditional &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHT &nbsp; &nbsp; zh-Hant<br><br>
** not sure what's meant by Chinese Phonetic, may be zh-Latn (Latin transcription) or zh-Bopo (Bopomofo)?<br><br>
Regards, &nbsp; Martin.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
#-# Martin J. D&uuml;rst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University<br>
#-# <a href="http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp</a> &nbsp; mailto:<a href="mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ltru mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ltru <at> ietf.org" target="_blank">Ltru <at> ietf.org</a><br><a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Mark Davis ☕ | 30 Oct 15:50 2009

Pinyin language?

I was surprised to see the following; anyone know about it?

%
Type: language
Subtag: pny
Description: Pinyin
Added: 2009-07-29
%

Mark

<div><p>I was surprised to see the following; anyone know about it?<br><br>%<br>Type: language<br>Subtag: pny<br>Description: Pinyin<br>Added: 2009-07-29<br>%<br><br clear="all">Mark<br></p></div>
John Cowan | 30 Oct 16:02 2009

Re: Pinyin language?

Mark Davis ?? scripsit:
> I was surprised to see the following; anyone know about it?
> 
> %
> Type: language
> Subtag: pny
> Description: Pinyin
> Added: 2009-07-29
> %

Thus spake the Ethnologue
at http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pny :

Pinyin
A language of Cameroon

ISO 639-3: pny
Population              24,600 (2001 SIL).
Region                  North West Province, Mezam Division, southwest Bamenda 
                        Subdivision, southwest of Bamenda.
Language map            Southwestern Cameroon, Enlarged Area, reference number 186
Alternate names         Bapinyi, Pelimpo
Dialects                Related to Awing [aal], Ngemba [nge], Bafut [bfd], 
                        Mendankwe-Nkwen [mfd].
Classification          Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Benue-Congo, 
                        Bantoid, Southern, Wide Grassfields, Narrow 
                        Grassfields, Mbam-Nkam, Ngemba
Language development    Literacy rate in L2: 15%-25%.

Coincidences will happen.

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan <at> ccil.org
'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake
Mark Davis ?? scripsit:
> I was surprised to see the following; anyone know about it?
> 
> %
> Type: language
> Subtag: pny
> Description: Pinyin
> Added: 2009-07-29
> %

Thus spake the Ethnologue
at http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=pny :

Pinyin
A language of Cameroon

ISO 639-3: pny
Population              24,600 (2001 SIL).
Region                  North West Province, Mezam Division, southwest Bamenda 
                        Subdivision, southwest of Bamenda.
Language map            Southwestern Cameroon, Enlarged Area, reference number 186
Alternate names         Bapinyi, Pelimpo
Dialects                Related to Awing [aal], Ngemba [nge], Bafut [bfd], 
                        Mendankwe-Nkwen [mfd].
Classification          Niger-Congo, Atlantic-Congo, Volta-Congo, Benue-Congo, 
                        Bantoid, Southern, Wide Grassfields, Narrow 
                        Grassfields, Mbam-Nkam, Ngemba
Language development    Literacy rate in L2: 15%-25%.

Coincidences will happen.

--

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan <at> ccil.org
'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake
John Hudson | 30 Oct 18:22 2009

Re: font features in CSS

Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> HTML lang and XML xml:lang use BCP 47 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47, 
> formerly RFC 1766/3066/4646) tags, not ISO 639 directly....

It should be noted that 'language system' in the context of OpenType 
Layout is a misnomer, because that these tags actually represent are 
typographic conventions -- most obviously, culturally preferred glyph 
shapes --, which are very often identified with language use but not 
always or necessarily. This is why OTL language system tagging does not 
use one of the two or three letter language code standards: the 
expectation was always that some sets of typographic conventions would 
not be mappable to languages or, as Adam notes, to might map to multiple 
languages, or, indeed, that some users of a particular language would 
want to employ 'language system' conventions of another language.

I agree with Adam that it is desirable to have a mechanism to directly 
address OTL language system tags for display independent of language 
tagging of content.

JH

jfkew | 30 Oct 19:00 2009

Re: font features in CSS

John Hudson wrote:

> I agree with Adam that it is desirable to have a mechanism to directly
> address OTL language system tags for display independent of language
> tagging of content.

FWIW, the experimental mozilla implementation supports this: within the
-moz-font-feature-opentype string, you can use "language=XXX" to select an
OT language system, and if this is used it will override the default
(based on the page or html element's lang attribute).

Of course, -moz-font-feature-opentype strings are not necessarily the
final interface for any of this, but I agree that we need to provide this
level of control.

JK

John Hudson | 30 Oct 20:40 2009

Re: font features in CSS

jfkew <at> jfkew.plus.com wrote:

>> I agree with Adam that it is desirable to have a mechanism to directly
>> address OTL language system tags for display independent of language
>> tagging of content.

> FWIW, the experimental mozilla implementation supports this: within the
> -moz-font-feature-opentype string, you can use "language=XXX" to select an
> OT language system, and if this is used it will override the default
> (based on the page or html element's lang attribute).

Does this cause any problems for other functions making use of the page 
or html element lang attribute. I'm not aware of what such functions 
might be, but as a parallel in page layout applications I would expect 
things like justification/hyphenation, sorting, spellchecking, etc. 
might be affected.

For what kind of functions are lang attributes commonly used?

John Hudson

Andrew Cunningham | 30 Oct 23:02 2009
Picon

Re: font features in CSS



2009/10/30 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp>

                        (OT)    (ISO)
Chinese Hong Kong       ZHH     zho
Chinese Phonetic        ZHP     zho
Chinese Simplified      ZHS     zho
Chinese Traditional     ZHT     zho



you are comparing apples and oranges ,as the expression goes. The ISO language codes and BCP47 are about languages.

The table from teh OT spec is NOT a language idfentifier. It identifies what the OT spec refers to as a language system. According to the spec:

"Language system tags identify the language systems supported in a OpenType Layout font. What is meant by a “language system” in this context is a set of typographic conventions for how text in a given script should be presented. Such conventions may be associated with particular languages, with particular genres of usage, with different publications, and other such factors."

The language system tag could map to one language, to multiple languages, and in unexpected ways. Grouping commonalities in orthographic representation and typesetting traditions are the core aspect as far as I can tell, rather than language identification.

At least thats my partial understanding.

Andrew

--
Andrew Cunningham
Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
State Library of Victoria
Australia

andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au
lang.support <at> gmail.com
<div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/10/30 "Martin J. D&uuml;rst" <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote">
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (OT) &nbsp; &nbsp;(ISO)<br>
Chinese Hong Kong &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHH &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Phonetic &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHP &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Simplified &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHS &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
Chinese Traditional &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHT &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>
</blockquote>
<br><br clear="all">
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>you are comparing apples and oranges ,as the expression goes. The ISO language codes and BCP47 are about languages.<br><br>The table from teh OT spec is NOT a language idfentifier. It identifies what the OT spec refers to as a language system. According to the spec:<br><br>"Language system tags identify the language systems supported in a
OpenType Layout font. What is meant by a &ldquo;language system&rdquo; in this
context is a set of typographic conventions for how text in a given
script should be presented. Such conventions may be associated with
particular languages, with particular genres of usage, with different
publications, and other such factors."<br><br>The language system tag could map to one language, to multiple languages, and in unexpected ways. Grouping commonalities in orthographic representation and typesetting traditions are the core aspect as far as I can tell, rather than language identification.<br><br>At least thats my partial understanding.<br><br>Andrew<br><br>-- <br>Andrew Cunningham<br>Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator<br>State Library of Victoria<br>Australia<br><br><a href="mailto:andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au">andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au</a><br><a href="mailto:lang.support <at> gmail.com">lang.support <at> gmail.com</a><br>
</div>
Peter Constable | 30 Oct 23:53 2009
Picon

Re: font features in CSS

Indeed, the OT language system tags are about typographic conventions. Now, many languages have a single conventional writing system and a single set of conventions for typography for that writing system, though conventions may different for other languages with writing systems based on the same script. A familiar example is Serbian, which has distinctive italic forms for certain letters making its typographic conventions different from, say, Russian. There may also be cases within a single language and writing system of multiple typographic conventions. For instance, Malayalam is taught today using fewer conjunct forms than were used in the past.

 

In principle, it may be reasonable to say that two or more languages can be described as having a common set of typographic conventions. For instance, I don’t know of any particular reason why font rendering should differ according to whether the text is English or Spanish. In practice, though, it would be very difficult to manage a system that organized the data that way: it’s far easier to allow for a default OpenType language system tag for every language, keeping in mind that OpenType fonts have a default language system and that an explicit language system only needs to be incorporated into font data and invoked when rendering if there are distinctive typographic behaviours.

 

Btw, I was the one that added the ISO 639 data to the table in the OT tag registry. You’ll see that there are exceptions to what I just said: some of the OT lang system tags are associated with multiple ISO 639 codes, hence multiple languages. The list of OT lang system tags were a given: someone populated the registry with many entries several years ago, adding entries before there were known needs and without first explicitly adopting and declaring a conventional set of language identities – ISO 639-3 didn’t exist then, so it wasn’t an option. Moving forward several years, many of the OT lang system tags had become a bit of a mystery, and so I felt it made sense to introduce mappings to ISO 639 in order to establish a sensible meaning for as many as possible. When faced with a lang system tag such as ATH (Athapaskan), having no documentation of what the submitter for that tag had in mind, the best alternative I had was to associate that with all Athapaskan languages.

 

That’s all background on the conceptual issue Andrew raised. Let me comment on what is meant by “Chinese Phonetic”, and on Martin’s comments generally, starting with the latter.

 

Martin suggested that the info Adam Twardoch reported (on some other list than this) should be revised. Adam was merely reporting data that was in the OpenType registry of language-system tags. In principle, changes such as Martin suggested to use IETF Language Tags with region or script subtags might make sense, but in practice that would be attempting to do something that goes beyond the intent of the OpenType tag registry and that would not be highly feasible: to equate every language system tag with a _specific_ and equivalent IETF language tag. The simple explanation is the one Andrew gave: these things are not comparable – unless we want to introduce variant subtags for typographic conventions, and I’m not sure that makes sense. My add’l explanation is that it would not be a simple task, and I don’t think it would be worth the effort. Thus, such changes will *not* be made.

 

As for “Chinese Phonetic”, I mentioned above that most of the tags were registered years ago without documentation. Thus, it’s not clear what was meant when ZHP was first submitted. It probably was Pinyin, though that’s not certain. Now, I could go and revise the data in the OT tag registry to make the intent explilcit, describing ZHP as being for “Chinese Pinyin”. But I’ve got to ask: are there really different typographic conventions for Pinyin than for any other Latin-based writing system for Chinese? My guess is probably not.

 

 

 

Peter

 

From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Cunningham
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 7:02 AM
To: Martin J. Dürst
Cc: Jonathan Kew; www-font; Håkon Wium Lie; www-style; Stephen Zilles; LTRU Working Group; Adam Twardoch (List)
Subject: Re: [Ltru] font features in CSS

 

 

2009/10/30 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp>

 

                        (OT)    (ISO)
Chinese Hong Kong       ZHH     zho
Chinese Phonetic        ZHP     zho
Chinese Simplified      ZHS     zho
Chinese Traditional     ZHT     zho




you are comparing apples and oranges ,as the expression goes. The ISO language codes and BCP47 are about languages.

The table from teh OT spec is NOT a language idfentifier. It identifies what the OT spec refers to as a language system. According to the spec:

"Language system tags identify the language systems supported in a OpenType Layout font. What is meant by a “language system” in this context is a set of typographic conventions for how text in a given script should be presented. Such conventions may be associated with particular languages, with particular genres of usage, with different publications, and other such factors."

The language system tag could map to one language, to multiple languages, and in unexpected ways. Grouping commonalities in orthographic representation and typesetting traditions are the core aspect as far as I can tell, rather than language identification.

At least thats my partial understanding.

Andrew

--
Andrew Cunningham
Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator
State Library of Victoria
Australia

andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au
lang.support <at> gmail.com

<div><div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Indeed, the OT language system tags are about typographic conventions. Now, many languages have a single conventional writing system and a single set of conventions for typography for that writing system, though conventions may different for other languages with writing systems based on the same script. A familiar example is Serbian, which has distinctive italic forms for certain letters making its typographic conventions different from, say, Russian. There may also be cases within a single language and writing system of multiple typographic conventions. For instance, Malayalam is taught today using fewer conjunct forms than were used in the past.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In principle, it may be reasonable to say that two or more languages can be described as having a common set of typographic conventions. For instance, I don&rsquo;t know of any particular reason why font rendering should differ according to whether the text is English or Spanish. In practice, though, it would be very difficult to manage a system that organized the data that way: it&rsquo;s far easier to allow for a default OpenType language system tag for every language, keeping in mind that OpenType fonts have a default language system and that an explicit language system only needs to be incorporated into font data and invoked when rendering if there are distinctive typographic behaviours.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Btw, I was the one that added the ISO 639 data to the table in the OT tag registry. You&rsquo;ll see that there are exceptions to what I just said: some of the OT lang system tags are associated with multiple ISO 639 codes, hence multiple languages. The list of OT lang system tags were a given: someone populated the registry with many entries several years ago, adding entries before there were known needs and without first explicitly adopting and declaring a conventional set of language identities &ndash; ISO 639-3 didn&rsquo;t exist then, so it wasn&rsquo;t an option. Moving forward several years, many of the OT lang system tags had become a bit of a mystery, and so I felt it made sense to introduce mappings to ISO 639 in order to establish a sensible meaning for as many as possible. When faced with a lang system tag such as ATH (Athapaskan), having no documentation of what the submitter for that tag had in mind, the best alternative I had was to associate that with all Athapaskan languages.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>That&rsquo;s all background on the conceptual issue Andrew raised. Let me comment on what is meant by &ldquo;Chinese Phonetic&rdquo;, and on Martin&rsquo;s comments generally, starting with the latter.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Martin suggested that the info Adam Twardoch reported (on some other list than this) should be revised. Adam was merely reporting data that was in the OpenType registry of language-system tags. In principle, changes such as Martin suggested to use IETF Language Tags with region or script subtags might make sense, but in practice that would be attempting to do something that goes beyond the intent of the OpenType tag registry and that would not be highly feasible: to equate every language system tag with a _specific_ and equivalent IETF language tag. The simple explanation is the one Andrew gave: these things are not comparable &ndash; unless we want to introduce variant subtags for typographic conventions, and I&rsquo;m not sure that makes sense. My add&rsquo;l explanation is that it would not be a simple task, and I don&rsquo;t think it would be worth the effort. Thus, such changes will *not* be made.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>As for &ldquo;Chinese Phonetic&rdquo;, I mentioned above that most of the tags were registered years ago without documentation. Thus, it&rsquo;s not clear what was meant when ZHP was first submitted. It probably was Pinyin, though that&rsquo;s not certain. Now, I could go and revise the data in the OT tag registry to make the intent explilcit, describing ZHP as being for &ldquo;Chinese Pinyin&rdquo;. But I&rsquo;ve got to ask: are there really different typographic conventions for Pinyin than for any other Latin-based writing system for Chinese? My guess is probably not.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Peter<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>From:</span><span> ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Cunningham<br>Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 7:02 AM<br>To: Martin J. D&uuml;rst<br>Cc: Jonathan Kew; www-font; H&aring;kon Wium Lie; www-style; Stephen Zilles; LTRU Working Group; Adam Twardoch (List)<br>Subject: Re: [Ltru] font features in CSS<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2009/10/30 "Martin J. D&uuml;rst" &lt;<a href="mailto:duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst <at> it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>&gt;<p></p></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (OT) &nbsp; &nbsp;(ISO)<br>Chinese Hong Kong &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHH &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>Chinese Phonetic &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHP &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>Chinese Simplified &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ZHS &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<br>Chinese Traditional &nbsp; &nbsp; ZHT &nbsp; &nbsp; zho<p></p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br><br clear="all"><p></p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>you are comparing apples and oranges ,as the expression goes. The ISO language codes and BCP47 are about languages.<br><br>The table from teh OT spec is NOT a language idfentifier. It identifies what the OT spec refers to as a language system. According to the spec:<br><br>"Language system tags identify the language systems supported in a OpenType Layout font. What is meant by a &ldquo;language system&rdquo; in this context is a set of typographic conventions for how text in a given script should be presented. Such conventions may be associated with particular languages, with particular genres of usage, with different publications, and other such factors."<br><br>The language system tag could map to one language, to multiple languages, and in unexpected ways. Grouping commonalities in orthographic representation and typesetting traditions are the core aspect as far as I can tell, rather than language identification.<br><br>At least thats my partial understanding.<br><br>Andrew<br><br>-- <br>Andrew Cunningham<br>Vicnet Research and Development Coordinator<br>State Library of Victoria<br>Australia<br><br><a href="mailto:andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au">andrewc <at> vicnet.net.au</a><br><a href="mailto:lang.support <at> gmail.com">lang.support <at> gmail.com</a><p></p></p>
</div></div>

Gmane