(editor hat) DONE, but with Yet Another Set of Edits. <t>Use a specific language subtags or sequences of subtags in preference to subtags for language collections. A "language collection" is a subtag that represents multiple related languages. These subtags, which are comprised of the set of <xref target="ISO639-5"></xref> codes, are included as primary language subtags in the registry. (Some of the ISO 639-5 codes are also defined as collections in ISO 639-2.) Language collections in the registry have a 'Scope' field with a value of 'collection'. A subtag representing a language collection MAY be used when more specific language information is not available, but most tag processes and users do not know there is a relationship between the collection and its encompassed languages. In addition, in many cases the encompassed languages are not mutually intelligible or closely related enough for the common identifier to be useful in a language tagging context. Since the subtags are different, the tags are treated as being different languages: a request for the collection will only produce items tagged with the collection code, not with the individual languages it contains. For example, for the collection 'cmc' (Chamic languages), the registry contains the values for each of its approximately ten individual languages. Collections are interpreted inclusively, so the subtag 'gem' (Germanic langauges) could (but SHOULD NOT) be used with content that would be better tagged with "en" (English), "de" (German), or "gsw" (Swiss German, Alemannic). While 'gem' collects all of these (and other) languages under a single identifier, no reasonable user or process would prefer the collection to the more accurate individual language subtag.</t> Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon at microsoft.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:19 AM > To: Phillips, Addison; LTRU Working Group > Subject: RE: 4.1: 639-2 special cases > > > From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com] > > > > 2. The first itemized paragraph discusses collections... > > > > I find the wording creates a feel of discontinuity from the > intro > > > paragraph as it's not obvious how this relates to 639-2, > > > particularly given the reference to 639-5. > > > > > > Suggested revision: > > > ---------------- > > > ISO 639-2 includes codes for language collections, as does [ISO > > > 639-5]. A "language collection" code represents multiple > related > > > languages. These codes are included as primary language subtags > in > > > the registry. However, specific language subtags or subtag > > > sequences SHOULD be used in preference to subtags for language > > > collections. For example... > > > ---------------- > > > > I think the first sentence is somewhat artificial (as is the > original > > para): you can't tell the source from the registry anyway. > > > > Your suggested revision doesn't follow the pattern for other > items here, > > which all start with specific advice. Thus I modified the para... > > You had some follow-on comments, and in the end there's just a > reference to ISO 639-5, which still leaves a discontinuity from the > intro paragraph and its reference to 639-2. One more suggested > revision: > > ---------------- > Use a specific language subtags or sequences of subtags in > preference to subtags for language collections. A "language > collection" is a subtag that represents multiple related languages. > These codes comprise the set of [ISO639‑5] codes, and many are also > included in ISO 639-2; all are included as primary language subtags > in the registry. The 'Scope' field for a collection subtag has the > value 'collection'. ... > ---------------- > > > I'm satisfied with the resolution of other items I raised in this > thread. > > > > Peter _______________________________________________ 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.