Subject: RE: [Ltru] Default script sine qua non (was: Moving Forward)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:30:30 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Frank Ellermann

> Yes, that was my point, Associated_Script doesn't help to find
> the default script for any language I don't know.  The absence
> of Associated_Scripts (plural) only means "there is a default
> script, but we don't tell you what it is" => FUBAR, I need
> exactly the opposite info.

I think Frank is quite right here: what we want people to do is *not*
use a script subtag in some cases, and we should be telling them in
which cases they should observe this expectation, not a partial
statement of the opposite.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:56:54 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of John Cowan

> For what purpose?  The registry isn't supposed to be a general
> compendium of information on languages (and I repeat, most languages
> have no script because they aren't written).

That isn't the intent Frank is getting at, or that I was getting at when
I suggested this a few days ago. It's simply to make clear in what cases
a script subtag should not generally be used.

In the case of, say, the Ormuri language, if we don't even know if it's
written, then no value would be given. 

In the case of a language like Azeri, no value would be given because we
know that no one script can be assumed to occur in a majority of
content.

In the case of languages like French, Russian, Arabic, Thai, etc. a
single value would be given because we know that one script can be
assumed in the vast majority of content.

In that way, it will be clear to users which for languages a script
subtag should not be included (expect for uncommon usage scenarios).

> 
> > A way to have both, either a default or more associations, in
> > a list Associated_Script with either one or more entries, is of
> > course fine, but the important case is "one" => SHOULD NOT.
> 
> No, it's zero scripts that means SHOULD NOT.

No, he's not talking about the Expected_Script_Subtags proposal, in
which the subtags that should be used are enumerated. He's talking about
his proposal, in which the script subtags that should *not* typically be
included are enumerated. Under this proposal, e.g. exactly one script
subtag would be listed for cases such as English, which are the cases in
which we don't want a script subtag used.

Peter Constable

---

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:00:24 -0700

Hi,

Given Peter's excellent ExpectedScriptSubtags:

- zero scripts ought to be MUST NOT for script subtag,
- one script ought to be SHOULD NOT (with strong rationale for developers)
- two or more scripts ought to be MAY (with examples of exceptions)

I agree that the registry (as Peter has suggested) should tell the
whole truth (as far as is known by linguists on the mailing list)
for each registered base language about the legitimate scripts.
(Braille is a hard exception here - we don't want to pollute the 
one script rule, if possible - I suppose this applies equally to 
Sign, but we already have the anomalous 'sgn-xxx' tags).

If there are some real MUST NOTs and some well-explained SHOULD
NOTs in RFC3066bis, I'm ready to quietly concede and accept that
script is the second canonical position in the ABNF.

Really, as Addison says, let's move on.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:26 PM
> To: Frank Ellermann
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Default script sine qua non (was: Moving Forward)
> 
> 
> Frank Ellermann scripsit:
> > John Cowan wrote:
> > 
> > > Obscure languages are probably only written in one script,
> > > and don't need Associated_Script.
> > 
> -- 
> John Cowan                              [email-masked]
> http://www.reutershealth.com            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Humpty Dump Dublin squeaks through his norse
>                 Humpty Dump Dublin hath a horrible vorse
> But for all his kinks English / And his irismanx brogues
>                 Humpty Dump Dublin's grandada of all rogues.  
> --Cousin James
>

---

From: "L.Gillam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:29:51 +0100

Peter, 

Let me just clarify the intention of these identifications - relates
to Ira's mail also.

> know that no one script can be assumed to occur in a majority of

These two cases - unknown script, no assumed script - result in
the same empty value. Would empty be sufficient, or would a 
UNKNOWN identifier be needed, or some similar mechanism?

> assumed in the vast majority of content.

Is the option "no script" or "this script" here? - I'm not yet clear.

> subtag should not be included (expect for uncommon usage scenarios).

Is the option, then, "no script" or "one of these"? If ExpectedScriptSubtags
simply covers the range of possible scripts that are expected to be used for
a given language, would there be an impact on the programmatic interpretation
in systems if the extension from "one only" to "more than one" happens 
(the Cyrl only to Cyrl + Latn case)?

I'm not yet clear about this intended solution, or whether it helps the
"put script here" discussion.

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 08:11:47 -0700

On
> Behalf Of L.Gillam

> Let me just clarify the intention of these identifications - relates

I think we have two options on the table here:

1) language subtags include a field called "Expected_Script_Subtags".
Values and the meaning thereof are as follows:

- languages like Ormuri: we have no knowledge of written form, so no
value is entered; no guidance is provided regarding use of script
subtags

- languages like English, Russian, Arabic, Thai: known to use one script
only in the vast majority of content (others may be used in specialized
content, however); *exactly one value* is entered, meaning that that
script subtag should not in general be used (but can be used in
specialized applications)

- languages like Azeri, Chinese: known to have more than one script in
common use; multiple values are entered, meaning that inclusion of a
script subtag is unrestricted, and that it's expected that one of the
enumerated subtags will generally be used

2) language subtags include a field called "Default_Script". Values and
the meaning thereof are as follows:

- languages like Ormuri: we have no knowledge of written form; no value
is entered; no guidance is provided regarding use of script subtags,
also implying that there are no script subtags are identified as being
dis-recommended from being used

- languages like Azeri, Chinese: known to have more than one script in
common use; 

	- sub-option a) no value is entered, meaning that no
	  script subtags are dis-recommended from being used

	- sub-option b) multiple values are entered, meaning 
	  that inclusion of a script subtag is unrestricted, 
	  and that it's expected that one of the enumerated 
	  subtags will generally be used

- languages like English, Russian, Arabic, Thai: known to use one script
only in the vast majority of content (others may be used in specialized
content, however); exactly one value is entered, meaning that that
script subtag should not in general be used (but can be used in
specialized applications)

> [for cases like Ormuri] would a

I think it would be good to be explicit about what we do or don't know,
though it would put a greater burden on us for sorting out the
less-well-researched cases (more of a problem after we include 639-3). 

What we know best is which languages we definitely don't want people
using script subtags in general applications. Option 2a requires us to
enter only that info. 

For languages with multiple scripts in common use, we probably have
pretty good knowledge about the scripts that are used for the most
likely-to-be-encountered languages. The problem is that there is a
continuum in our knowledge and in usage. E.g., 

- we know that Chinese has two commonly used scripts, Hans and Hant

- we know that three scripts have been used for Tajik -- Latn, Cyrl and
Arab -- but I seem to recall that one of these is not commonly used

- it's not widely known but I happen to know that two scripts (Ethiopic
and Latn) have been used for Wolaytta, but this may be (I don't know) a
neo-literacy situation in which two scripts were in use only temporarily
and the community has since rejected one and embraced the other.

- I know that multiple scripts are used for Pwo Karen, but besides Thai
I'm not sure which others have been used.

- Out of many dozens of languages spoken in regions straddling borders
in SE Asia, I know there are languages that are written and that have
been written using more than one script, but I don't know much in the
way of specifics.

Option 1 requires us to make some decision about this continuum.

> If ExpectedScriptSubtags
> simply covers the range of possible scripts that are expected to be
used
> for

Good question. It would have to correspond to a scenario like (e.g.) a
change from Ukranian being commonly written only in Cyrillic to
widespread adoption within a significant proportion of users of (say)
Latin script. These kinds of changes would be messy for us -- and that
would be the case no matter what means we adopt for handling script
distinctions except if we were to decide to ignore our meager 10 years
of legacy usage and always included a script subtag, even for cases like
English.

Peter Constable