Subject: [Ltru] Re: -01 nits

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:11:57 -0700

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

> * There's still a *("-" extlang) in the ABNF, it should be at most one
>   ["-" extlang].

This is a technical issue, not an editorial one.  It has not yet been
decided that there should be a limit of one extended language subtag.

You and John Cowan argued in favor of this limit, and I would agree
unless someone can present a reasonable use case for multiple extlangs
(zh-min-nan does not count).  But the group must agree to a change like
this; it can't go in through the "back door" of editorial correction.

> * In chapter 2.2.2:  Please replace all "subtags" by "subtag".
>   Please remove "3. There MAY be any additional number of
>   extended language subtags."  At most one extlang, otherwise
>   it doesn't fly with RfC 2231 / 2047.

See above.

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

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:57:58 -0400

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> (zh-min-nan does not count).  

/me argues out of both sides of his mouth with the greatest of ease.

Here's a use case for multiple extlangs, partly factual, partly
hypothetical.  The 639-1 code 'ar' represents Arabic, which from a
639-3 standpoint is a macrolanguage covering Standard Arabic ('arb')
and 29 Arabic colloquials.  So in 3066ter, you would tag Standard
Arabic specifically with "ar-arb", and (e.g.) Algerian Spoken Arabic
with "ar-arq".  It would still be valid to use the tag "ar", of course,
which would leave the specific kind of Arabic vague.  Since 'arb' and
'arq' would be in the registry as extlang subtags rather than language
subtags (with a "Required-Prefix" of "ar"), this tagging scheme would
be the only one possible under the rules.

Now suppose further research shows that Algerian Spoken Arabic is not
a single language, but a cover term for two distinct languages, say
Eastern and Western Algerian S.A.  The natural action of the 639-3/RA
would be to register two new codes; let us suppose they are 'erq' and
'wrq' respectively (which are currently unused).  These would be included
in the macrolanguage table under 'ar', since they are still covered by
the general name "Arabic".

What should the RFC 3066ter registry maintainers do?  Clearly "ar-arq"
would still be valid, so 'arq' would remain in the registry as
an extlang subtag.  But what is the best tagging scheme for the newly
recognized languages?  Should we use "ar-erq" and "ar-wrq" and not
worry about the overlap with "ar-arq", or should we go to a 2-level
extlang scheme with "ar-arq-erq" and "ar-arq-wrq"?  The former would
promote simplicity, the latter would promote backward compatibility in
the presence of prefix-matching schemes.

(I apologize for the generally seal-barking nature of this message.)

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley