|
We went through this awhile ago, hence all this text about uniqueness.
But it does seem, upon further reflection, that it would be a pain to check. I think it is reasonable to keep the “different formats”
prohibition. I can understand why Mark and others would want descriptions to
be unique too: how can users figure out which of the identically named items to
use for what? In practice it is probably fairly obvious, provided one knows
that, say, Dimli does appear twice and not just once. While it isn’t much work
to check it, I wouldn’t be surprised to find something slip through. I think we
could accommodate this by SHOULDifying uniqueness (we have already given the
LSR broad editorial powers regarding descriptions). Perhaps add a paragraph
saying: <t>Descriptions SHOULD be unique within a given type of
subtag so that users do not become confused about which subtag to use and the
Language Subtag Reviewer SHOULD edit any that match existing descriptions to
ensure clarity. For example, the language subtags 'zza' and 'diq' both have a
description in ISO 639-3 of "Dimli". It happens that 'zza' (Zaza) is
a macrolanguage that encloses the language 'diq'. Therefore the set of
Description fields for 'zza' includes one that was edited to read "Dimli
(macrolanguage)".</t> Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org
[mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable The problem is that, as things stand, we would be dependent on
ISO 639 RAs / JAC to set names in such a way as to ensure that uniqueness guarantee,
and whereas we divide the alternate names for a given entry into separate
description fields they just have a single “name” field – ie., they would have
to ensure that no single name was ever used in more than one entry, a
uniqueness guarantee that goes far beyond what they require. Clearly, that’s
not a reasonable expectation. If we wanted to maintain this level of uniquess,
then our only option would be to add text in 3.4 allowing the Reviewer to edit
names coming from a source ISO standard by adding parenthetic qualifiers to
ensure uniqueness. But it’s not clear to me why we would really need *that*
level of uniqueness. Peter From:
mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Davis It certainly can be made
to be unique across all records, without resorting to rocket science: change
zza's Dimli by adding an annotation, like "Dimli (Zaza)". On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote: The collective set of
descriptions for a given record should be unique across records of a given type
(modulo cases like Javanese). Doug has pointed out an existing instance
("Dimli") in which a single description field can't be unique across
all descriptions for all records of a given type. Peter From: mark.edward.davis at gmail.com
[mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Davis
I disagree with this change. The descriptions
need to be unique within the type of field. We can always qualify the names, eg
"Ainu (China)". On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Phillips, Addison <addison at amazon.com>
wrote: (technical hat)
> Peter Constable scripsit: |
_______________________________________________ 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.