Re: [Ltru] Uniqueness of variant subtags

Mark

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison at amazon.com> wrote:

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.

But I do think that they do have a single core meaning - a specification or work associated with a year.

--

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'.

We can't have this situation. Languages can't claim years all for them selves ;-). And yet any 4-digit sequence will be interpreted as a year. If we are not going to give broad meaning to 4 digit sequences as years, then we should just forbid any future registration of them as 4 digit sequences.

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

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.