Re: [Ltru] Canonical variants

In my view, your text is now going in simply the wrong direction. I had proposed the following, which John seconded and you and Peter ignored.

However, what you and others seem to be implicitly assuming is the ordering "most significant subtag first". So just to get out of this issue, we could use that as a guiding principle. That is, we give the advice to users (in the "tag wisely section") for variant subtag ordering as follows:

- put prefix variant subtags before their suffixes (that is, if V1 occurs in a Prefix of V2, V1 should go first)
- otherwise, put "more significant" variant subtags before others
- otherwise -- or in case there is any doubt as to relative significance -- put variant subtags in alphabetical order.

At this point, I think we are better reverting to the text of 9 days ago on this topic, and just leaving this issue open for the future. We can then get back to the main issue, of seeing whether we are sufficiently done to do a real last call.

Mark

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison at amazon.com> wrote:

Hmm... yes, this is a complicated thing to explain. I started with your text and arrived at:

--
<t>If more than one variant appears within a tag:

<list style="letters">

<t>Order any variant related to the other subtags via a 'Prefix' ahead of those variants that lack any relationship to other subtags but following any subtags that appear in any of its 'Prefix' fields. For example, the tag "en-scottish-fonipa" (English, Scottish dialect, IPA phonetic transcription) is in canonical order because 'scottish' has a 'Prefix' of "en", while 'fonipa' has no 'Prefix' field. Another example would be the tag "sl-IT-rozaj-biske-1994". This tag is in canonical form: 'rozaj' lists "sl" as its sole 'Prefix'; 'biske' lists "sl-rozaj" as its sole Prefix. The subtag '1994' has several prefixes, including "sl-rozaj". However, it follows both 'rozaj' and 'biske' because one of its 'Prefix' fields is "sl-rozaj-biske".</t>

<t>Keep any remaining variant subtags in their original order. For example, both the tags "tlh-boont-fonipa" (Klingon, Boontling, IPA phonetic transcription) and "tlh-fonipa-boont" are considered "canonical". The 'boont' subtag has a 'Prefix' of "en" (it really shouldn't appear in this tag), while 'fonipa' has no 'Prefix'. The reason for the selection and ordering of these subtags cannot be determined from the registry, so the original order is maintained.</t>

</list>
</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 16, 2008 10:14 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison; ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Canonical variants
>

> > From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com]
>
>
> > <t>Order any variant that includes another variant or list of
> > variants in one of its 'Prefix' fields directly following that
> variant
> > (or list of variants).
>
> For this, maybe wording along the lines of the following would be
> useful:
>
> "For a given variant subtag within a given tag, examine the
> 'Prefix' fields for that subtag and determine the longest 'Prefix'
> that is also part of that tag. If there is such a prefix for that
> variant subtag, then the variant subtag must directly following
> that prefix."
>
>
> Just an idea...
> 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.