FWIW: If we choose extlang, I think 3 is interesting to consider. Note that 3 is also very similar to the no-extlang proposal, if you assume applications want to know about the grandfathered tags. A few points: - I think whether its restored or not, that we need to be clear that zh means "any kind of chinese". - If it extlang is restored, I think we should make it clear which languages need the extlang behavior, eg: Chinese. To me the value of extlang would be to allow additional information in existing protocols that don't allow "lists" of language tags, and it seems kind of like a specialized list to me. In cases where lists are acceptable, I think that a non-extlang form would be acceptable. (Because you can specify zh;cmn or whatever). - Shawn ________________________________________ From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com [Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 5:34 PM To: Phillips, Addison Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang 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 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.