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

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:02:46 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn

> As a technical contributor, the longer this thread goes on
> the more consideration I think we should give to alternatives like
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lilly-content-script-01.txt
> 
> If we were to treat the identification of the language(variant),
> the script, and the orthography of a text as three distinct
> attributes, rather than trying to structure them into a single string
> called a "language tag" would it ultimately make things simpler
> or more complicated?

It would make things more complicated. The big failing I see in Bruce
Lilly's draft is that it fails to recognize that script is not the only
relevant aspect of written form. In terms of 3066bis, there are
written-form variants and spelling conventions that will be
distinguished using country IDs, variant subtags or both. Bruce is
suggesting that we pull out the script subtag into a separate metadata
category; but written-form distinctions indicated by the region and
variant subtags are left behind. 

If that idea is to be considered at all, then it requires written-form
tags that involve more than just an ISO 15924 ID. But then you have a
significant usability problem: should my current en-GB content be tagged

lang = en-GB, script = Latn-GB

or 

lang = en, script = Latn-GB

or 

lang = en-GB, script = Latn

or 

lang = en-GB

This scheme requires far more user guidance than what is currently
proposed, and more than is feasible: it requires telling them how to
judge e.g. whether a country distinction reflects a distinction in
language variety, a distinction in written form, or both.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:40:19 -0700

Hi -

(as contributor)

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:02 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Compatibility with existing use (LDAP)
>

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn
...
> variant subtags are left behind.

That's why I'm suggesting that language, script, and orthography be
handled as *three* attributes.

> tags that involve more than just an ISO 15924 ID.

Agreed.

> But then you have a

(alternatives elided)

> language variety, a distinction in written form, or both.
...

True, but these are distinctions that have been causing us grief.
For example, "Microsoft are on their best behaviour" shows en-GB
language (the use of "are" and "their" for a collective noun, which
would be ungrammatical in en-US) and en-GB orthography (the
spelling of "behaviour" rather than "behavior"), all in Latin script.

In our neighborhood is a shopping center owner by an Australian
company.  Signs there use Australian English grammar, but,
as far as I can tell, they've "localized" things to use American
English spelling, except for trademarks.  Similarly, I've seen ISO
documents written using an orthography based on the OED, but
with clearly American language (grammar and usage).

Randy

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:48:04 +0200

Agreed.

Agreed.

> > language variety, a distinction in written form, or both.

The whole question of this WG. Is it "user guidance" or "user's guidance". 
Is a language a way people claiming to speak that language MUST speak, or 
is a language the first societal contract among people the relations 
assistance tools and services MUST support?

Your use of "orthography" is interesting to replace (?), complete (?) ISO 
3166. Is this a way to consider a geopolitical reference through a common 
orthography (as taught in school?).

jfc