John Cowan wrote: > This is all information direct from 639-3, so it's in our remit. Yes, but I still don't think we should mirror it. We would have to mirror the explanations for the values in the RFC, track changes to the values, and otherwise encumber ourselves with various maintenance and explanatory details. The less we do in the registry by fiat, the more flexible we will be. I have to admit to being at least a little leery of the (necessary and unavoidable) fluctuations that will come from any embrace of "splitter" (vs. "lumper") linguistic categorization schemes. There is no end to the ways that one can split up and categorize language. The less of the non-normative information we mirror, the easier the maintenance work and the less likely we will find ourseFrom ltru-bounces at ietf.org Mon Jun 2 10:30:35 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 29CD73A6BED; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:30:35 -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 B50A43A6BE3 for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:30:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nzt-MLNK8LU9 for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com (smtp-fw-9101.amazon.com [207.171.184.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA0E28C204 for <ltru at ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,630,1199664000"; d="scan'208";a="46549628" Received: from smtp-in-5102.iad5.amazon.com ([10.218.9.29]) by smtp-border-fw-out-9101.sea19.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 02 Jun 2008 17:22:34 +0000 Received: from ex-hub-4104.ant.amazon.com (ex-hub-4104.sea5.amazon.com [10.248.163.25]) by smtp-in-5102.iad5.amazon.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m52HMVC9030907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:22:32 GMT Received: from EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.28]) by ex-hub-4104.ant.amazon.com ([10.248.163.25]) with mapi; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:22:31 -0700 From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com> To: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 10:22:30 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Ltru] More on combination type/scope field Thread-Index: AcjExnqLhLb+PTfIRPe4/3t4ffBmFwADX64Q Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A9F27FA at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> References: <005001c8c479$bb10dab0$e6f5e547 at DGBP7M81> <4843AD0D.5000601 at malform.no> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A9F251A at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <20080602153649.GB13276 at mercury.ccil.org> In-Reply-To: <20080602153649.GB13276 at mercury.ccil.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ltru] More on combination type/scope field 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org John Cowan wrote: > This is all information direct from 639-3, so it's in our remit. Yes, but I still don't think we should mirror it. We would have to mirror the explanations for the values in the RFC, track changes to the values, and otherwise encumber ourselves with various maintenance and explanatory details. The less we do in the registry by fiat, the more flexible we will be. I have to admit to being at least a little leery of the (necessary and unavoidable) fluctuations that will come from any embrace of "splitter" (vs. "lumper") linguistic categorization schemes. There is no end to the ways that one can split up and categorize language. The less of the non-normative information we mirror, the easier the maintenance work and the less likely we will find ourselves emblves embroiled in long-winded and painful (yet ultimately meaningless) discussions on ietf-languages. 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 roiled in long-winded and painful (yet ultimately meaningless) discussions on ietf-languages. 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.