Re: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>]

1. I don't see that separating out D from C adds anything. But if you have a
use-case, that would be interesting.

> From what I can understand, which is by no means sure, the advocates
> for B information want it so that they can vet tags like en-Latn(-GB)
But for that, for the NC, they don't need the information that the default
script is Latn. All they need to know is that if there are two scripts in
the registry, then in that situation put no script in the tag.

> I believe the desire of this part of the WG is to reject en-Latn
> absolutely (because it is the default) while still retaining the
> possibility of ko-Latn.
*Requiring* the default to be rejected is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Suppose that I am querying a database of phrase books for Thai. They contain
a mixture of those using Latin and those using Thai script. I can issue 3
queries:

1. th-Thai - give me only the ones in Thai, and written in the Thai script
2. th-Latn - give me only the ones in Thai, using a Latin transcription
3. th - give me anything.

This is a perfectly sensible thing to do. But if #1 is illegal, it does not
let users make a perfectly useful discrimination between #1 and #3.

The right thing to do is to indicate, as others have indicated, is that in
the normal case (NC) for stuff like webpage selection, you should not use
the script unless there are two scripts listed in the registry.


‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
Cc: <ltru at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:34
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward


> Mark Davis scripsit:
>
> > A. We know the language is customarily used with more than one script
> > B. We know the language is customarily used with one script
> > C. The information for A or B is not available in the registry: either
just
> > not entered yet, or hard to find out.
>
> You omit:
>
>   D. The language is not customarily used with any script.  (Any language
may
>   be transcribed in writing, as any language may be spoken over the radio;
>   but just the same, Chinese is written and Burushaski is not, as Navajo
is
>   regularly broadcast and Akkadian is not.)  This does not apply to
current
>   639-2 languages but will apply to 639-3 languages.
>
> > As I said before, I have not yet seen an implementation scenario where
we
> > need the infomation in B, and both the strategies that use it require
> > entering in much more data than the ZZ scenario. So I'd like to see a
> > scenario that drives B clearly stated.
>
> From what I can understand, which is by no means sure, the advocates
> for B information want it so that they can vet tags like en-Latn(-GB)
> and warn against or reject them.  Without B information we cannot
> distinguish between en-Brai (anomalous, so correct) and en-Latn
(undesirable).
>
> > 2. As Peter says, we mustn't say MUST NOT, however: there are scenarios
in
> > which it may be appropriate to use en-Latn or ko-Latn.
>
> I believe the desire of this part of the WG is to reject en-Latn
> absolutely (because it is the default) while still retaining the
> possibility of ko-Latn.
>
> -- 
> All Gaul is divided into three parts: the part          John Cowan
> that cooks with lard and goose fat, the part
www.ccil.org/~cowan
> that cooks with olive oil, and the part that
www.reutershealth.com
> cooks with butter. -- David Chessler
jcowan at reutershealth.com
>
>



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru