headers
Peter Constable | 2 Dec 17:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

Note: searches for BCP 47 don't quickly take one to RFC 5646. In particular, one result is this link

http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47

which take one to RFC 4646.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of IESG Secretary
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 10:30 AM
To: ietf-announce <at> ietf.org
Cc: ltru <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

The Language Tag Registry Update (ltru) working group in the Applications Area has concluded.

The IESG contact persons are Alexey Melnikov and Lisa Dusseault.

The LTRU working group has successfully completed its deliverables and can now be closed. The ADs would
like to thank everyone who participated in the work over the years. 

The mailing list will remain open.
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 2 Dec 18:03
Picon

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon <at> microsoft.com>
> To: "IESG Secretary" <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
> Cc: <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
>
> Note: searches for BCP 47 don't quickly take one to RFC 5646. In particular, one result is this link
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
> 
> which take one to RFC 4646.

No, it does not.  The first line below the list of links says:
[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]

The RFCs there are 4647 and 5646.
It looks fine to me.

Randy
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Peter Constable | 2 Dec 20:20
Picon
Favicon

Re: WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

My bad: I saw "4647" and "Obsoletes: 3066" and misread the former as "4646".

The user experience would be much better, IMO, if the note at the top named the RFCs, "... is a concatenation
of RFCs 4647 and 5646", and if this were HTML (as the URL suggests, btw) with links at that top of the page to
the start of each RFC.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Peter Constable; IESG Secretary
Cc: ltru <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon <at> microsoft.com>
> To: "IESG Secretary" <iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>; <ietf-announce <at> ietf.org>
> Cc: <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
>
> Note: searches for BCP 47 don't quickly take one to RFC 5646. In particular, one result is this link
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
> 
> which take one to RFC 4646.

No, it does not.  The first line below the list of links says:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 14 Dec 05:22
Picon

Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

Hi -

This i-d might be of interest to folks who participated in the ltru effort.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
> To: <i-d-announce <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:00 AM
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt 
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> Title           : Pronunciation Alphabet Registry
> Author(s)       : D. Burnett, Z. Shuang
> Filename        : draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt
> Pages           : 16
> Date            : 2009-12-04
> 
> This document describes a new registry for Pronunciation Alphabets,
> such as pinyin, that can be used to describe pronunciations of words
> and phrases in a particular language.
> 
> Status of this Memo
> 
> This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
> provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
John Cowan | 15 Dec 22:02

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

Randy Presuhn scripsit:
> Hi -
> 
> This i-d might be of interest to folks who participated in the ltru effort.

This effort seems singularly pointless and duplicative, since these
Pronouncing Alphabets are just romanization systems, and we already
register those as variant subtags.

Is there any IETF-ly organizational method of discouraging this?

--

-- 
But that, he realized, was a foolish            John Cowan
thought; as no one knew better than he          cowan <at> ccil.org
that the Wall had no other side.                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Randy Presuhn | 16 Dec 07:44
Picon

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan <at> ccil.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn <at> mindspring.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt
...
> This effort seems singularly pointless and duplicative, since these
> Pronouncing Alphabets are just romanization systems, and we already
> register those as variant subtags.
> 
> Is there any IETF-ly organizational method of discouraging this?
...

My suggestion would be to engage directly with the authors,
and to perhaps request use cases (for potential inclusion in
the document) to clarify whether these are in fact "just romanization
systems", and whether a (select subset of) language tags could
provide the same functionality or not.  It's really important to
get clarification (and to make the draft clear) about this point.

(FWIW, I don't see why a pronouncing alphavet would *necessarily*
be a romanization system.)

The next point of input would be to alert an Area Diretor (e.g.
Alexey Melnikov) so that the IESG would be aware of potential
concerns, particularly potential overlap with existing IETF BCP.

Randy
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Peter Constable | 16 Dec 09:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn

> (FWIW, I don't see why a pronouncing alphavet would *necessarily* be a romanization system.)

Indeed: I met a Korean linguist about 10 years ago who was promoting use of Hangul for general phonetic transcription.

Peter
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Kent Karlsson | 16 Dec 10:38
Picon

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

I don't know who you are referring to... But I know of a book partly on the
subject of using Hangul as a phonetic alphabet (OPA, Othophonic alphabet):

The Korean alphabet of 1446 ­ Expositions, OPA, The visible speech sounds,
Annotated translation, Future applicability; Sek Yen Kim-Cho, Humanity Books
and AC Press, New York, 2002, ISBN 89-428-1587-1.

http://www.amazon.com/Korean-Alphabet-1446-Expositions-Applicability/dp/1591
02000X

    /kent k

Den 2009-12-16 09.59, skrev "Peter Constable" <petercon <at> microsoft.com>:

> From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy
> Presuhn
> 
>> (FWIW, I don't see why a pronouncing alphavet would *necessarily* be a
>> romanization system.)
> 
> Indeed: I met a Korean linguist about 10 years ago who was promoting use of
> Hangul for general phonetic transcription.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Leif Halvard Silli | 16 Dec 14:28
Picon

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

Peter Constable, Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:59:49 +0000:
> From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Randy Presuhn
> 
>> (FWIW, I don't see why a pronouncing alphavet would *necessarily* be 
>> a romanization system.)
> 
> Indeed: I met a Korean linguist about 10 years ago who was promoting 
> use of Hangul for general phonetic transcription.

Indeed. But whether we talk about Romanization or a form of 
transliteration/transcription into a non-Roman script - such as 
Cyrillic, seems besides the point. Or? 

The pronunciation alphabet registry is meant to be used in documents 
crafted according to the Pronunciation Lexicon Specification or the 
Speech Synthesis Markup Language, which both of them reckon IPA as one 
of the possible pronunciation alphabets. As code for IPA, they both use 
"ipa'. However, 'ipa' is not registered in the pronunciation alphabet 
registry. As we know, the LTR tag for IPA is 'fonipa'.

The real question is: Should they have relied on the language tag 
registry or on their own registry?

The Pronunication Lexicon spec includes xml:lang as part of its 
language: [1]

 ]]
The required xml:lang attribute allows identification of the language 
for which the pronunciation lexicon is relevant. IETF Best Current
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Phillips, Addison | 16 Dec 17:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-alphabet-registry-00.txt

Hi,

Actually, I spoke with the authors (they represent the W3C SSML [Speech Synthesis Markup Language]
Working Group) last month at W3C TPAC in Santa Clara. The problem they are trying to solve looks
superficially like a job for language tags and my first advice to them was to consider registration of
subtags, use of language tags, or creation of an extension. However they had reasons to seek a separate
registry which didn't seem unreasonable to me at the time.

The main thing is that pronunciation schemes tend to be vendor specific and are not necessarily
transcriptions or, in fact, even useful outside the speech synthesis process. It seems unlikely to me
that the language subtag registry would take in a wide variety of these things, especially the
vendor-specific variations.

I am in receipt of a request to discuss this at today's W3C Internationalization WG call, a non-IETF
organization may (or may not) discourage this or at least look further into it.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces <at> ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:45 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action:draft-burnett-pronunciation-
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane