Re: [Ltru] draft updated

["Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>]

Actually, the buffer argument was an aside.

My real concerns are:

- adding subtags when canonicalizing is counter-intuitive (I would expect the canonical tag to be more compact).

- some legacy systems (CLDR, for example) have inherent structural/design reliance on the language portion being somewhat atomic

- the Lookup algorithm (i.e. locale-style negotiation) seems to be adversely affected by extlangs. Lookup produces better results when the language and extlang are "atomic". Having a canonical mapping to a primary subtag makes exactly that distinction. If I'm using Lookup, all I have to do is canonicalize the tags and then run lookup normally. The other way I have to change code (and would probably push hard for a 4647bis as a result).

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Steele [mailto:Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:25 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison; Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] draft updated
>
> I'm pretty undecided about which is best, but I don't "buy" the
> buffer argument.  RFC4646 already allows quite long language tags
> (once you consider x- and other possibilities).
>
> - Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:41 PM
> To: Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft updated
>
> > >
> > > > With Kent apparently signing off on the changes as well, and
> > with most
> > > > other issues resolved, I'll be putting together a draft-
> > 4645bis-06 in
> > > > the next few days.
> > >
> > > Just letting you and the WG know that I continue to *strongly*
> > favor
> > > making "zh-cmn" and "zh-yue" (and the rest) the preferred forms,
> > and
> > > "cmn" and "yue" the pre-deprecated ones.
> > ...
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree, but am trying to keep an open mind.
> >
>
> I don't agree.
>
> Notice that this would cause you to gain a subtag. This is the only
> time this happens (all other mappings cause you to either have the
> same number of subtags or lose some). Among other things, one might
> face buffer length issues (some programming languages don't like
> the buffer to increase in size).
>
> Addison
> _______________________________________________
> 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