|
Comments follow. Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
+1
(editor hat) DONE.
(editor hat OFF). I don’t think this quite jibes with removing ‘Deprecated’.
If we remove deprecated from extlang records, we don’t have to say anything
else here. What we do have to say is something about preferred values later.
(editor hat OFF) The iw/he example is orthogonal to the extlang
problem we’re addressing here. I’m not sure it makes sense to thrust this
example in at this juncture. (editor hat) This text also seemed a little awkward to me and a
rewrite was in order. I didn’t ignore your suggestions, but had to reorganize
to achieve the right result (such as adding a case to the former “three cases”
list. Here is the resulting text: -- <section
anchor="preferredfield" title="Preferred-Value Field"> <t>The field
'Preferred-Value' contains a mapping between the record in which it appears and
another tag or subtag (depending on the record's 'Type'). The value in this
field is used for canonicalization (see <xref
target="canonical"></xref>). In cases where the subtag or
tag also has a 'Deprecated' field, then the 'Preferred-Value' is RECOMMENDED as
the best choice to represent the value of this record when selecting a language
tag. </t> <t>Records containing a
Preferred-Value fall into one of these four groups: <list
style="numbers"> <t>ISO 639 language
codes that were later withdrawn in favor of other codes. These values are
mostly a historical curiosity. The 'he'/'iw' pairing above is an example of
this.</t> <t>Subtags (with
types other than language or extlang) taken from codes or values that have been
withdrawn in favor of a new code. In particular, this applies to region subtags
taken from ISO 3166-1, because sometimes a country will change its name or
administration in such a way that warrants a new region code. In some cases, countries
have reverted to an older name, which might already be encoded. For example,
the subtag 'ZR' (Zaire) was replaced by the subtag 'CD' (Democratic Republic of
the Congo) when that country's name was changed.</t> <t>Tags or subtags
that have become obsolete because the values they represent were later encoded.
Many of the grandfathered or redundant tags were later encoded by ISO 639, for
example, and fall into this grouping. For example, "i-klingon" was
deprecated when the subtag 'tlh' was added. The record for
"i-klingon" has a 'Preferred-Value' of 'tlh'.</t> <t>Extended language
subtags always have a mapping to their identical primary language subtag. For
example, the extended language subtag 'yue' (Cantonese) can be used to form the
tag "zh-yue". It has a Preferred-Value mapping to the primary
language subtag 'yue', meaning that a tag such as "zh-yue-Hant-HK"
can be canonicalized to "yue-Hant-HK".</t> </list> </t> <t>Records other than those of type 'extlang' that contain
a 'Preferred-Value' field MUST also have a 'Deprecated' field. This field
contains the date on which the tag or subtag was deprecated in favor of the
preferred value.</t><t>For records of type 'extlang', the
'Preferred-Value' field appears without a corresponding 'Deprecated' field. An
implementation MAY ignore these preferred value mappings, although if it
ignores the mapping, it SHOULD do so consistently. It SHOULD also treat the
Preferred-Value as equivalent to the mapped item. For example, the tags
"zh-yue-Hant-HK" and "yue-Hant-HK" are semantically
equivalent and ought to be treated as if they were the same tag.</t> <t>Occasionally the deprecated code is preferred in
certain contexts. For example, both "iw" and "he" can be
used in the Java programming language, but "he" is converted on input
to "iw", which is thus the canonical form in Java. </t> <t>'Preferred-Value'
mappings in records of type 'region' sometimes do not represent exactly the
same meaning as the original value. There are many reasons for a country code
to be changed, and the effect this has on the formation of language tags will
depend on the nature of the change in question. For example, the region subtag
'YD' (Democratic Yemen) was deprecated in favor of the subtag 'YE' (Yemen) when
those two countries unified in 1990.</t> <t>A 'Preferred-Value'
MAY be added to, changed, or removed from records according to the rules in
<xref target="maintreg"/>. Addition, modification, or removal
of a 'Preferred-Value' field in a record does not imply that content using the
affected subtag needs to be retagged.</t> <t>The
'Preferred-Value' fields in records of type "grandfathered" and
"redundant" each contain an "extended language range"
(<xref target="RFC4647"></xref>) that is strongly RECOMMENDED
for use in place of the record's value. In many cases, these mappings were
created via deprecation of the tags during the period before <xref
target="RFC4646"/> was adopted. For example, the tag
"no-nyn" was deprecated in favor of the ISO 639-1-defined language
code 'nn'. </t><t>The 'Preferred-Value' field in subtag records of
type "extlang" also contains an "extended language range".
This allows the subtag to be deprecated in favor of either a single primary
language subtag or a new language-extlang sequence.</t> <t>Usually the
addition, removal, or change of a Preferred-Value field for a subtag is done to reflect
changes in one of the source standards. For example, if an ISO 3166-1 region
code is deprecated in favor of another code, that SHOULD
result in the addition of a Preferred-Value field. </t> <t>Changes to one
subtag MAY affect other subtags as well: when proposing changes to the
registry, the Language Subtag Reviewer will review the registry for such
effects and propose the necessary changes using the process in <xref
target="registrationProc"></xref>, although anyone MAY
request such changes. For example: <list> <t>Suppose that
subtag 'XX' has a Preferred-Value of 'YY'. If 'YY' later changes to have a Preferred-Value of
'ZZ', then the Preferred-Value for 'XX' MUST also change to be 'ZZ'.</t> <t>Suppose that a
registered language subtag 'dialect' represents a language not yet available in any part of
ISO 639. The later addition of a corresponding language code in ISO 639 SHOULD result
in the addition of a Preferred-Value for 'dialect'.</t> </list> </t> </section> --
(editor hat) DONE.
(editor hat OFF) Do we really need to litter the document for
this one case? (editor hat) Changed the ‘he’/’iw’ example here to ‘jbo’/”art-lojban”.
(editor hat OFF) This doesn’t belong here? The context of this
sentence is subtags that are deprecated with no P-V. The item says “SHOULD NOT”
on purpose and I don’t think we need to belabor it in this instance.
(editor hat OFF) Wouldn’t we
just include the S-S field in the records of type extlang? (editor hat) I did the
necessary edits to do it that way.
|
_______________________________________________ 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.