Re: [Ltru] going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"

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

Thanks

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer' [mailto:bortzmeyer at nic.fr]
> Sent: 07 May 2008 14:48
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: going back to the roots to find a solution to "zh"
>
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:25:11AM +0100,  Debbie Garside
> <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote  a message of 55 lines which said:
>
> > I missed the whole extlang debate so I don't really know all the
> > reasons why it was dismissed.
>
> [My personal summary]
>
> * stability issues (what if a "standalone" language becomes
> encompassed or the opposite?).
>
> * "dummy" right truncation, as allowed by extlangs, is not a
> good idea for macrolanguages, anyway (two encompassed
> languages of the same macrolanguage may not be mutually intelligible).
>
> * politically, it may send the message that the encompassed
> language is inferior in some way.
>
> As Randy said here, you can also make a similar list of the
> good reasons to keep extlangs. The case is really a 50-50 but
> we have to decide on one solution.
>
> > But it needs to be done with an open mind and I don't see
> the need to
> > be restrictive to facilitating fallback *just* for macrolanguages.
>
> The idea was not to facilitate fallback (a complicated thing,
> which depend a lot of non-linguistical data), just to use an
> information that ISO 639-3 gives us (macrolanguages).
>
> In the current 4646bis model, "smart" fallback is not handled
> (because it requires a lot of outside information).
>
> > We could include a "Fallback" field and devise a registration
> > procedure to incorporate information with regard to "known fallback
> > relationships" that would encompass a good deal of this.
>
> This is a huge work, compared to with Suppress-Script
> discussions is peanuts :-)
>
> To mention again typical examples (my examples, criticisms welcome):
>
> "fr" (french) is a good fallback for "br" (breton), not
> because the two languages are related (they are quite
> distinct) but because Brittany is in France and, since the
> 19th century, there are no longer breton speakers that do not
> speak french.
>
> "fi" (finnish) is probably a good fallback for "xx-FI"
> because finnish is the most common language in Finland so
> someone who requests "sv-FI"
> can probably read finnish. But "fi" is not a good fallback for "sv"
> alone.
>
> In writing, "arb" is a good fallback for every encompassed
> language of the macrolanguage "ar" (arabic). But it is not
> true in spoken form.
>
> These examples give an idea of the amount of information required.
>
>
>
>
>
>




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