Re: [Ltru] Additional descriptions not found in ISO

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

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:46 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Additional descriptions not found in ISO
>

> A list member whose judgment I trust wrote this to me off-list, and I
> thought it was appropriate to bring it onto the list:
>
> > Would it be appropriate to add "Bangla" as a description
> > under the "Bengali" entry?
> >
> > I see these as two separate entries on a lot of the lists I've
> > reviewed.
>
> The initial registry includes Description fields taken directly from the
> relevant ISO and UN standards.  I tried to be very diligent about
> copying them exactly, to the point of using the ISO 3166 country names
> "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of" and "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,"
> which I would never use in conversation, and the ISO 639 language name
> "Low German; Low Saxon; German, Low; Saxon, Low" (split into multiple
> Description fields), which I consider major overkill.  The only
> conscious changes I made were to add a space between the period and the
> digit in constructions like "English, Old (ca.450-1100)".
>
> ISO 639 lists "Bengali" as the only English name for the code element
> "bn".  However, it is certainly true that the name "Bangla" is often
> used as well, particularly by native Bengali speakers.  There are
> probably other examples as well.
>
> My understanding is that:
>
> 1.  The Description field is not normative, and user agents are free to
> substitute any name that does not materially change the meaning of the
> subtag.  It's OK for a user interface to replace "Bengali" with
> "Bangla," but not with "Italian."
>
> 2.  Additional Description fields can always be proposed for
> registration after the RFC goes live, subject to the restriction about
> not changing the meaning.
>
> 3.  The initial registry is meant as a starting point, where 869 subtags
> and their descriptions are registered with the blanket justification
> that they appear in the core standards.  Adding a single alternative
> description that is not in the standards would open the door for other
> such requests, which is what the individual-registration process is
> supposed to be for.  It would probably be best to hold off on such
> requests until the RFC goes live, and use the procedure in Section 3.4
> to request them at that time.
>
> Is this more or less the hum of the group, or do we need a ticket?
...

As technical contributor: I think not doing it here is the correct choice.
Handling requests to add information or modify those fields is properly
the role of ietf-languages at ietf.org   Doing it here would not add any
unique value to the process and would slow us down.

As co-chair:
As you put it, you're not proposing any changes to anything, so I've not
created a ticket in the https://rt.psg.com/ (user/password "ietf") system.

Randy




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