Re: [Ltru] Uniqueness of variant subtags

[mark at macchiato.com]

Thanks for the comments. After thinking about it a bit, I made some
significant edits, as follows.

<t>Records are unique by Type and Subtag: the registry MUST not
contain two different records that have identical values for both Type
and Subtag. Thus requests to assign an additional record of a given
Type with an existing Subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the
variant subtag 'rozaj' already exists in the registry, so adding a
second record of type 'variant' with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited.
However, information <i>can</i> be added to an existing record. For
example, the '1994' subtag variant record could have the prefix
'fr-CA' added together with a description of usage for a French
Canadian spelling reform associated with the year 1994.</t>

<t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple prefixes must have
consistent semantics across those prefixes. Variant subtags MAY
indicate an organization (including governments), such as 'ungegn',
'usbgn', or 'cisgost'. When applied to different prefixes, each would
consistently refer to a variant as specified by that organization for
those prefixes. For example, 'ungegn' could be defined as referring to
a transliteration for any given prefix as specified by the United
Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN).</t>

<t>Four digit subtags are reserved for indicating a year. Their
meaning is in reference to some significant specification or other
work associated with that year. It may have multiple prefixes: the
particular specification for a given prefix MUST be clearly indicated
in one of the Descriptions.</t>

On 10/2/08, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se> wrote:
> I assume "Subtype" should be "Subtag". Also some of the example variant
> subtags (with letters) here are shorter than 5 letters/digits.
>
> I like the year approach here. Many languages get orthographic reforms,
> usually small, issued by a (recognised) authority for the language in
> question.
> This would just be for pure 4-digit variant subtags.
>
> Not sure I really like the organisation approach. But I'm not strongly
> opposed. Still, does it have to be emphasised as an example (out of only two
> approaches,
> this and year numbers, so emphasised)?
>
>     /kent k
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Davis
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:11 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: LTRU Working Group; Doug Ewell
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Uniqueness of variant subtags
>
>
> I looked back at the text you had:
>
> <t>Requests to assign an additional record of a given type with an existing
> subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the variant subtag 'rozaj'
> already exists in the registry, so adding a second record of type 'variant'
> with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited.</t>
>
>
> Here is my proposal based on the discussion.
>
> <t>Records are unique by Type and Subtype: the registry MUST not contain two
> different records that have identical values for both Type and Subtype. Thus
> requests to assign an additional record of a given Type with an existing
> Subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the variant subtag 'rozaj'
> already exists in the registry, so adding a second record of type 'variant'
> with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited. However, information can be added to
> an existing record. For example, the '1994' subtag variant record could have
> the prefix 'fr-CA' added together with a description of usage for a French
> Canadian spelling reform associated with the year 1994.</t>
>
> <t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple (or no) prefixes must have
> consistent meaning across those prefixes. Four digit subtags should refer to
> some specification or change associated with a year for the given prefixes.
> Other subtags may be associated with an authority for the language,
> orthography, or transliteration (transcription), such as 'ungegn', 'bgn', or
> 'gost'. When applied to different prefixes, they would always refer to the
> same authority.</t>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Phillips, Addison <addison at amazon.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> [chair hat on]
>> I think I have seen very strong opposition to having multiple
>> records with the same variant subtag, for implementation reasons,
>> and nobody fighting for multiple records as such. Addison and Mark,
>> unless this is already covered in -17, can I ask you to draft some
>> language covering this (and only this) point?
>
>
> I already drafted it in the editor's copy and just proposed removing said
> draft for lack of any consensus. draft-18 on inter-locale has the proposed
> text.
>
> Addison
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mark
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru