RE: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

Mark Davis wrote:

> 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.

I agree with this, it seems perfectly logical... but... 

If the tag for Sirenik is ysr-RU how do you know what the default script is?

Have I missed something here? 

Debbie


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: 14 April 2005 20:47
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Moving Forward
> 
> 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


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