Re: [Ltru] I'm really confused by chinese in 3066bis

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

So, basically, what I said is true as long as we don't create additional
Macrolanguages.

Are there likely to be additional Macrolanguages created in the future?  If
so, then you need to say when they can be registered - purely by following
ISO 639 or some other procedure.

If we take Macrolangauges as just a hack to get around what had happened
within previous ISO 639 standards there will be no problem.

best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com]
> Sent: 12 May 2008 16:21
> To: debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] I'm really confused by chinese in 3066bis
>
> >
> > Addison wrote:
> >
> > > No, actually we can't "program implementations" without breaking
> > > existing "well-formed" implementations (which I think
> represents the
> > > majority of implementations).
> >
> > I am not sure I understand this.
>
> What you said was:
>
> > You can easily programme into implementations the scenarios
> for when a
> > user has used an extlang as a primary language subtag and you don't
> > need a type 2 on the macrolanguage to say that it can be used as a
> > standalone primary language subtag - that's covered by the text.
>
> "Programming into implementations" information about which
> extlang subtags can be used as primary language subtags
> requires a table of items from the registry. Implementations
> that rely on remove-from-right solely (i.e. "well-formed"
> implementations, as opposed to "validating" implementations)
> will not have this information and will get it wrong.
>
> >
> > > Reliance on metadata in the registry is, of course, something you
> > > are familiar and comfortable with---ISO 639-6 relies on
> it. But BCP
> > > 47--and the matching schemes in particular--have historically
> > > eschewed such reliance. If we introduce reliance on the
> registry, it
> > > breaks the implementations that rely solely on tag structure.
> > > Arguments between extlangistas and non-extlangistas have greatly
> > > revolved around this particular problem.
> >
> > Or this... I take it you mean that implementations are just
> looking at
> > the syntax to see if it is wellformed and not hardcoding
> the registry
> > within.
>
> Yes: well-formedness relies solely on the syntax rules. We
> don't require a copy of the registry for that. Validation
> requires a copy of the registry.
>
>
> > Can you give an example?
> >
> > > If this were just a one-time thing, such as the
> grandfathered list,
> > > it might not be so bad, since we could give the list to
> hardcode in
> > > the RFC. But there is no indication that the
> macrolanguage list is
> > > closed or particularly stable (even if entries are
> stable, new ones
> > > will probably be created).
> >
> > But that is same across the Registry - new entities are created all
> > the time.
>
> New entries are created all the time. Validating
> implementations rely on the registry as of some particular
> registry date. But well-formedness is not affected by this.
> You don't have to know what the tags mean to do many
> operations on them.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that: if we are going to *require*
> that tags of the form "yue-*" be treated as equivalent to
> tags of the form "zh-yue-*", that might be okay (I'm not
> convinced that it is, please note) if the list were short,
> closed, and stable. If, however, it changes over time, it is
> hard on implementations that otherwise have no use for the registry.
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>
>




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