Subject: [Ltru] Re: Matching metrics

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:15:38 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> In column 2 (en-GB-scouse) en-Brai-GB-scouse beats
> en-GB-Latn and en-Latn-US-scouse.

Well, it should, shouldn't it?

John's algorithm will work fine for some cases.  Yours, with weights of
4-3-1-2 or 4-2-1-3 or whatever, might work better in some cases and not
as well in others.

There is no one solution, because sometimes script will be more
important than region and variant, and sometimes one of the other two
will be the most important.  The charter acknowledges this: "it is not
expected that any single matching algorithm will fit all needs."

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:23:24 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> But there are no Unicode points above 126 in the draft
> registry at the moment, so why do we discuss this now ?

Actually, if you look again at
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/lstreg.txt you will see three "/u"
sequences that represent characters above the ASCII range.  These are
the names of regions: Åland Islands, Côte d'Ivoire, and Réunion.  (There
are about to be a few more, as I add back the accented characters for
script and language names that were previously converted to ASCII, as
required by previous drafts.)

We're discussing a lot of issues that aren't necessarily problems "at
the moment."

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:06:03 +0200

> Well, it should, shouldn't it?

No, I wanted en-Latn-US-scouse, but it doesn't work without a
"default script" concept, no matter which metrics I use, I need
the info that something like a "default script" exists for some
languages.

Or maybe only for variants (as "recommended prefix"), because
these are the difficult cases.

For a matching metrics we should use the "recommended prefix":
If a variant comes with its recommended e.g. language, then it
could get some bonus points.
                            Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:30:03 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> Åland Islands, Côte d'Ivoire, and Réunion.

Odd, yes, also on their Web page, apparently only these 3 cases.
What happened below Luxembourg and below Oman, the extra line ?

                    Bye, Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:18:46 -0400

> the info that something like a "default script" exists for some

In fact what you need is the knowledge that Scouse is a dialect of
en-GB.  You are asking for something that doesn't exist, and the
algorithm is coughing up a hairball of possibilities trying to help you.

> could get some bonus points.

That's a possibility.

-- 
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application:     John Cowan
        WELCOME TO <censored>                   [email-masked]
        DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:55:23 +0200

John Cowan wrote:
 
> In fact what you need is the knowledge that Scouse is a
> dialect of en-GB.

Not used elsewhere ?  That would be very different from some
de-dialects found in places like Pennsylvania, Paraguay, or
Kazakhstan, all different from their oounterparts in Germany
today.  No chance of "en-scouse" communities in the US or in
other parts of the world excl. GB ?

If that's the case we just found another problem of squeezing
four dimensions into one:  "scouse" would need a "recommended
prefix" en-GB (implicitly en-*-GB), not only en.

                          Bye, Frank