I agree with John and I do not support Mark's proposal. Mark: consider your own proposal to register 'hpin1958'. Would you be pleased if after you registered: Type:variant Subtag:hpin1958 Description: Hanyu Pinyin romanization of Mandarin Chinese ... somebody came along and added these descriptions to it: Description: Pinyin romanization of Tibetan Description: Tongyong romanization of Chinese ... Or would that be a violation of "consistent semantics"? I think it is too hard to judge. Let's stick with semantic meaning. Mark proposed this text: <t>Records are unique by Type and Subtag: the registry MUST not Ed.> 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. AP> I liked my original version better, since it is more succinct. 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> AP> I don't care for this proposal for the reasons given above. <t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple prefixes must have Ed.> MUST have consistent semantics across those prefixes. Variant subtags MAY AP> "MAY" is too strong here. This text is more advisory than normative. I would suggest instead something like: -- Requests for related variants might use a similar subtag format to visually indicate the relationship between them. For example, they might indicate an organization (such as a government or standards body). For example, 'ungegn' could be defined as referring to a transliteration for any given prefix as specified (etc..) -- 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> AP> Despite my proposal above, I think this is overkill. It suggests that some initial subtag sequences might acquire meaning that must be normatively enforced here and it doesn't solve a problem that is imminent. <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> AP> I think this is overkill. We don't have any examples of non-year four-digit registrations at present nor do we have to spell out that a year should pertain to some event, I think. The registration process ought to do something useful, such as screen requests for such things. Besides, apparently the current trend is to append four letters of garbage to years :-). Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On > Behalf Of John Cowan > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 6:50 AM > To: mark at macchiato.com > Cc: LTRU Working Group; Kent Karlsson > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Uniqueness of variant subtags > > mark at macchiato.com scripsit: > > > <t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple prefixes must have > > consistent semantics across those prefixes. > > I'd say "a single meaning" rather than "consistent semantics". > The hypothetical subtag 'western' has consistent semantics (it > means > "the western dialect of any language") but not a single meaning, > for > en-US-western has nothing to do with ko-western. > > -- > He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan > tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that cowan at ccil.org > hardly nobody could get there and most of > http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > the leaders would stay home and let him go --H.L. Mencken's > to work and do things as he pleased. Declaration of > Independence > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ 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.