Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Compatibility with existing use (LDAP)

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:46:01 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 11:14 AM
> To: Peter Constable
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Compatibility with existing use (LDAP)
> 
> 
> > > From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > On
> 
> 
> > This whole argument is a strawman. The number of cases in 
> which tags of
> > the form ll-Ssss-CC will be used are limited.
> 
> You have absolutely no way of knowing that that will be the 
> case. As I pointed
> out in other mail, script information is something that often 
> can be derived
> from other data. Country information is often something you 
> have available as
> well. This makes it entirely possible that such tags will be 
> created in an
> attempt to make things more informative.

Since the inclusion or omission of script tags in future language
tags would at best be a SHOULD in RFC3066bis, no definitive 
statement that the use of script tags will be rare is accurate.

Much earlier in this thread, it was suggested to Kurt Zeilenga 
that an LDAP server be updated to infix script tags in EVERY 
record containing language tags (e.g., 'en-GB' --> 'en-Latn-GB').
If that's legal, then some misguided person may actually write
a tool to do just that.  Breaking all access by existing clients.

John Cowan gave an example (level 2 Braille) where the script
tag definitely should be sorted AFTER the region tag.  In order
to clean up what someday may well be called "The Chinese Mess"
and provide for the use of script tags elsewhere, you folks are
maintaining that it's harmless to reorder the subtags.  It's not!

If script tags SHOULD be rare in use, then it's no burden for
them to occupy the third position, rather than the second.

Semi-OT - the inclusion of script tags in language tags breaks
utterly the utility of presenting language choices to users in
GUIs as country-flag icons - the script differences would be
invisible.

Cheers,
- Ira

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)

> a tool to do just that.  Breaking all access by existing clients.

Didn't catch that one. Not good at all.

The one I've been thinking is likely is for message sending clients (including
but not limited to email clients) to insert script tags based on analysis of
message text. I already see a fair number of instances of clients blithely
adding language labels unconditionally (and often incorrectly), so this didn't
seem like much of a stretch.

				Ned

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:47:41 -0400

McDonald, Ira scripsit:

> tag definitely should be sorted AFTER the region tag.  

My remark was rather more tentative than that.

> them to occupy the third position, rather than the second.

Rare in practice does not mean unimportant in principle.

> GUIs as country-flag icons - the script differences would be

As I have said before, that practice is absurd.  The proper icon
for a language is its native name.

-- 
Kill Gorgûn!  Kill orc-folk!            John Cowan
No other words please Wild Men.         [email-masked]
Drive away bad air and darkness         http://www.reutershealth.com
with brig ht iron!  --Ghân-buri-Ghân    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan