Mark,
That’s now contradictory. You can’t say:
--
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.
--
And then say:
--
Variant subtags that are used with multiple prefixes MUST have
a single meaning across those prefixes.
--
Clearly, “French Canadian spelling reform” and “1994 orthography
of Resian Slovenian” are not the same meaning?!?
‘1994’ is taken. The metaphorical Canadians will have to make
due with something wacky like ‘1994qc’.
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
From:
ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Davis
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:23 AM
To: John Cowan
Cc: LTRU Working Group; Kent Karlsson
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Uniqueness of variant subtags
That's a good change, thanks. Modified wording below.
<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
a single meaning 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>
Mark
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
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