Hi, Frankly, I don't care if the linguists dislike or disagree with our definition. Our definition is for use only with the IANA Language Subtag Registry. And I much prefer the long version because it makes that restriction much clearer to the non-linguists (I think). Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org > [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Addison Phillips > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:57 AM > To: Martin Duerst; Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text > > > Okay, we're far out in the weeds now. How about: > > -- > The language tag is used to identify a language used for > communication by human beings. Such a language may take a > variety of forms: it can be spoken, written, signed, or > otherwise signaled; the primary requirement is that it be > what is sometimes called a 'natural language'. That is, it > must be a language in the ordinary sense of the word, which > can include constructed or artificially designed languages, > such as Esperanto. It excludes languages not intended > primarily for human communication, such as programming or > computer languages as well as various notation systems > created for specialized purposes and which could not serve as > a person's native tongue. > -- > > If *that* doesn't slay the Wittgenstein in all of you, then > we should probably give up trying to define what a language > is so precisely, allow a certain parsimony to reign, and say far less: > > -- > The language tag is used to identify a language as may be > spoken, written, signed or otherwise signaled and whose > primary purpose is communication between people. > -- > > Addison P. Phillips > Globalization Architect, Quest Software > Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group > > Internationalization is not a feature. > It is an architecture. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp] > > Sent: 2005?7?13? 18:37 > > To: Addison Phillips; Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text > > > > While we are at it, I propose that we change: > > > > The language tag is used to identify a language as used > (which includes > > being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by > human beings for > > communication of information to other human beings. > > > > to: > > > > The language tag is used to identify a language as used by > human beings > > for communication of information to other human beings. > This includes > > language being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled. > > > > [I'm not totally happy yet with the second sentence, but > I'm happy that > > the parentheses, which were difficult to parse, are gone.] > > > > Regards, Martin. > > > > > > At 01:42 05/07/14, Addison Phillips wrote: > > >I think that the following sentiments are a good summary > of my position > > as well. > > > > > >In response to the particular suggestion of Martin's > below, as well as a > > >previous thread concerning artificial languages and > whether those were > > >excluded and so forth, I would like to propose that we > change the text > > at > > >the start of Section 2 from: > > > > > ><q>The language tag always defines a language as used > (which includes > > being > > >spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human > beings for > > >communication of information to other human beings. > Computer languages > > such > > >as programming languages are explicitly excluded.</q> > > > > > >to read: > > > > > ><t>The language tag is used to identify a language as used (which > > includes > > >being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by > human beings > > for > > >communication of information to other human beings. A > language of this > > type > > >is sometimes called a 'natural language', and this > includes constructed > > or > > >artificially designed languages, such as Esperanto. Languages not > > intended > > >primarily for human communication, such as programming and other > > computer > > >languages, are explicitly excluded.</t> > > > > > >Addison > > > > > >Addison P. Phillips > > >Globalization Architect, Quest Software > > >Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group > > > > > >Internationalization is not a feature. > > >It is an architecture. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org > [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] > > On > > >> Behalf Of Martin Duerst > > >> Sent: 2005?7?13? 3:28 > > >> To: Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org > > >> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed addition after introduction (was: > > JerseyJE > > >> andGuernsey GG Country Codes) > > >> > > >> > > >> [with my co-chair hat off] > > >> I quite a bit agree with the sentiment in some of the text. > > >> (I have worked on Internationalization of the WWW and the > > >> Internet for a long time, so I hope this doesn't come as a > > >> surprise.) > > >[Addison Phillips] > > > > > >Amen. > > > > > >However, as an engineer, I think that what counts > > >> is the actual spec. As a technical project, the only thing > > >> we can do is to try to produce good technology, and hope > > >> it gets used the right way. Engineers in general, and the > > >> IETF in particular, is rather bad at marketing and politics, > > >> and I think we should stay away from it. > > >[Addison Phillips] > > > > > >+1 > > >> > > >> The only bit where I'd like a bit more time to check the current > > >> draft text is JFCs first paragraph. If we are not clear enough > > >> that the draft and the registry don't define languages, but > > >> only provide identifiers, then I think may be a problem. > > >> But if this is the case, then this should be fixed mostly > > >> by word tweaking, rather than by grandiose declarations. > > >> As an example, looking at the first sentence of section @, > > >> it currently starts "The language tag always defines a > language...". > > >> I think this should be changed to say > > >> "The language tag always identifies a language..." > > >> > > >I agree: this text leads away from the intentions of the > document and > > from > > >the spirit of RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 in general. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.