Hello Addison,
At 05:44 06/07/29, Addison Phillips wrote:
>Hello Martin,
>
>Thank you for doing this. Unless notes, I am "+1" to everything you said in
>your message.
>
>Specific comments follow.
same here.
>Addison
>
>Addison Phillips
>Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
>
>Internationalization is an architecture.
>It is not a feature.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>> Sent: vendredi 28 juillet 2006 01:41
>
>
>> ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006,
>> will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes
>> and language variant codes.
>
>As noted by others, this sentence should say something else. However, I'm
>convinced that the comments so far go in the wrong direction. In our jargon,
>the term "codes" refers to codes in ISO 639, not to subtags. I would thus
>propose we say:
>
>--
>ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make
>available around 7000 additional codes for identifying languages.
I have decided that when speaking about ISO, I'm using their
terminology (code elements), and when speaking about our stuff,
I'm using our terminology. I hope this will come out reasonably
well.
>--
>>
>> The working group will work on an update to the language subtag
>
>(Editorial) I would replace the phrase "work on" with "prepare" or "create".
Done.
>> registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from
>> ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate.
>
>As noted by others, replace 'variant' with 'extended language'.
Yes, my bad, done, mostly with text from Doug.
>> The working group will also deliver means to update the current
>> IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes.
>
>I would change this to be slightly more expansive:
>
>--
>The working group will also deliver a means to update the current
>IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes, as well
>as procedures for maintaining the registry as codes are assigned
>or modified in the future.
My understanding is that we already have the procedures for
updating. Or do we miss something?
>--
>
>Or you might consider using a separate sentence, such as the one I proposed
>yesterday:
>
>--
>The working group must decide how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the
>registry, what rules apply to associating a code with the language and/or
=>extlang subtag types, and any additional rules or guidance on their adoption
>and use.
>--
I don't see what's substantially different here from the existing
text:
>>>>
The working group will prepare an update to the Language Subtag
Registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from
ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or extended language subtags as
appropriate.
>>>>
In short, we have to update the procedures so that we can use
IOS 639-3. I don't think that we need more details here.
How codes are entered, what types they are given, and so on,
should all be covered under Language Subtag Registry
procedures.
>>
>> The working group may make adjustments to the registration process
>> and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based
>> on ongoing registration and operational experience and such
>> adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work.
>
>(Editorial) This is a bit of a run-on sentence. Please break it into two
>setences between
>'experience' and 'such'.
I adopted a split from Mark, with some changes of my own.
>I wouldn't oppose including some version of (Mark's version of) my ISO 639-6
>text here ;-).
>
>>
>> Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully
>> approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts
>> before ISO 639-3 is fully approved.
>
>I'm not sure that's correct. It would be more appropriate to say
>"Publication of the draft(s) as an RFC will depend on final approval of ISO
>639-3." There is ample space in the RFC Editor process for awaiting specific
>external events (as we've already discovered). We might well finalize an
>update to draft-registry quite quickly, but not the actual registry update
>("draft-initial").
Peter said that he would have the approval by the third week of September.
Do you think we'll be finished with our drafts before that?
Regards, Martin.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at 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.