Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips at quest.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>; <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
...
> So the mechanism works for you?
...

It seems to be able to produce the desired results for the cases
where I have first-hand knowledge of the language, and is easier
to understand than the approaches that required counting.

If the WG converges on this approach, what will be critical is the
clarity of the SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs.  It might be helpful
to include an example explaining why tagging data with en-Latn
would normally be a bad idea, in order to give implementers a
serious clue about just how strong the SHOULD NOTs are
meant to be.

Now, probing a bit deeper, (and these may be purely theoretical
problems, and could be dismissed as such) do we have any
cases like this:
    language L in general is written in script S1 overwhelmingly,
    and there is a substantial corpus of data tagged simply "L".
    language L has several important variants, V1..Vn
    V2, a rather rare variant, uses script S2 overwhelmingly

If there are cases like this (for example, a hypothetical community
of German speakers using the Hebrew alphabet in a manner similar to
Yiddish, or a community of Yiddish speakers using the latin alphabet)
would there be any need to represent this in the registry?
The tag L-S2-V2 would be preferred to the tag L-V2, right?  How would
a developer looking at the registry determine this?

Randy




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