Re: [Ltru] a modest proposal...

["Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>]

I've been thinking a bit about Addison's proposal; I've been at a
conference, and haven't had time to discuss it internally. I'll answer more
later, but one note on Shawn's approach:
We do already have a mechanism in the standard for deFrom ltru-bounces at ietf.org  Fri May 30 09:38:52 2008
Return-Path: <ltru-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4E53A6B64;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACBA3A6A0A
	for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.826
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id Mv7nQ6WqFVUo for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.187])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CC03A6B64
	for <ltru at ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a6so3430571tib.25
	for <ltru at ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
	bh=qR84fXDAiTEPrBYKb4Il1tQrj66y1piWp24gXdbimTI=;
	b=C49JO2ugG37FTebrkWcPAA2Tkkld0jwHGpW25X/uExyn6WqDgSk+wOOdpk/qWLy4e9omYKOdGEdN+qRpjulTu69CxHGPrzp1yzcKYk5km0F7CkAzQ1JXZRKrtYclWA28mMyejbJUQbkku4AWVJPloGv9Ew1sKGeLm1Uq7wCoA70=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
	b=W1K3sq8u0a3vjkTqnfBRV8rRrOyFE9m+OQEf9nnWOt8TFf+h6ZzSmCthwQXaPHTbxrpx+09z3JLgCP9gGniunUIwWQPTG8OKt+sXfcY12sytpoiefEbAwvIGT+E3CUdivNiLGQW/Aj+RWZ4EwHltMviWkCgReN9lsQhnpR/oKug=
Received: by 10.151.110.9 with SMTP id n9mr1055788ybm.148.1212165525895;
	Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.206.3 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <30b660a20805300938n267494f3l80be4171396daf91 at mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:38:45 -0700
From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080529201750.GR27379 at mercury.ccil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C706 at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
	<C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561BF7D8385 at NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<20080529201750.GR27379 at mercury.ccil.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: a96d7cab3eb43c1a
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] a modest proposal...
X-BeenThere: ltru at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list
	<ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>,
	<mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1671147636=="
Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
I've been thinking a bit about Addison's proposal; I've been at a conference, and haven't had time to discuss it internally. I'll answer more later, but one note on Shawn's approach:

We do already have a mechanism in the standard for dealing with equivalences, one that people already have to handle.

That is to make one of them the Preferred-Value of the other. That is, we could mandate that for all the extlang cases that we permit, like "zh-yue..." and "yue...", both forms would be valid, and one would be the Preferred-Value. That may actually be workable.

Mark

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:17 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

Shawn Steele scripsit:

> I would either like that, or the same thing, except where cmn and yue
> are allowed as aliases of zh-cmn & zh-yue

We have a long-standing rule of reason that says no two subtags mean
the same thing unless at least one of them is deprecated.  I'd be
reluctant to break that for the sake of supposed processing advantages,
since part of the Tao of the Internet is that the publisher never quite
knows how the reader will use the published text (or metadata).

--
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
      --Specht v. Netscape

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

--
Mark

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