Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang

[Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com]

Addison,

Tough call, really. 

I think my preference is #1 because nothing needs to be deprecated, the 
language hierarchies are represented for all macrolanguages, tag semantics 
don't change, and the legacy connection to "zh" is preserved. I would also 
be satisfied with #2 with the suggestion to deprecate "zh". 

I *might* not be opposed to #3, but fear it might be as confusing as what 
we've got now. I'm open to hearing suggestions on #3 with better spelled 
out usage rules.

Regards,

Karen Broome





"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com> 
Sent by: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
05/12/2008 04:11 PM

To
"Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com" <Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com>, Doug Ewell 
<doug at ewellic.org>
cc
LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org>
Subject
Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang






> I'm someone who needs these
> distinctions so I guess I find the continued existence of the "zh" tag
> to be more of a problem than the introduction of the more specific 
tagging
> I need.

So I'm trying to wrap my head around a suitable resolution that addresses 
the various needs expressed on this list. I tend to agree that you need 
specific tagging for stuff like written Cantonese and spoken Mandarin, 
etc. Historical use of vague tags, ascribing meaning not actually in the 
subtags, is not helpful.

How do you think this would best be solved? If I understand your previous 
messages, you'd prefer to see:

- Restore 'extlang'
- Require the extlang subtag to be used (via the SHOULD keyword??)
- Clarify that 'zh' means "any kind of Chinese" and thus isn't 
specifically one sort or another: specificity is desirable.

Or would you prefer:

- Not restore 'extlang'
- Possibly deprecate 'zh' (with no preferred-value)
- Clarify that users SHOULD use the specific flavor of Chinese, with 
additional subtags as appropriate
- Clarify that 'zh' means "any kind of Chinese" and thus isn't 
specifically one sort or another

Or, finally:

- Restore 'extlang'
- Allow the encompassed languages to be both extlangs and primary subtags
- Clarify that 'zh' means "any kind of Chinese" and thus isn't 
specifically one sort or another: specificity is desirable.
- Provide guidelines for choosing between 'zh-???" and "???" forms.

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:58 PM
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > In the flood of messages on this topic, I can't find the statement in
> > the archives that 'cmn' should be deprecated.  I hope to heaven that
> is
> > a misquote.
>
> (For the record, this was the message I was referring to...)
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
>
> Not so sure that we will get accuracy; frankly I think the introduction
> of
> cmn, arb, etc. were well intentioned, but in retrospect a mistake.
> There
> was no reason not to treat zh, ar, etc just like we treated de. There
> is
> no substantive difference between zh:yue and de:gsw.
>
> Given the existence and long usage of zh in IT, the introduction of cmn
> (etc) will inevitably just end up with mistagged data, mishandled
> lookups,
> and unsatisfied users, unless one follows the strategy that unless you
> have a strong reason not to, treat cmn as a synonym for zh. (In fact,
> it
> is simplest to remap cmn-* to zh-* on input.)
>
> [Our best course of action for compatibility and interoperability would
> be
> to deprecate cmn, arb, and the few others in that section, but I doubt
> that we could get consensus on that, so I'd never brought it up.]
>
> Karen writes:
>
> Above is the text I was referencing. Though Mark hasn't suggested that
> we
> actually do this, the fact that he thinks this would be helpful tells
> me
> that we're looking at this very differently. I'm someone who needs
> these
> distinctions so I guess I find the continued existence of the "zh" tag
> to
> be more of a problem than the introduction of the more specific tagging
> I
> need.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




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