Subject: [Ltru] Re: Great Script Debate Part II: Formats...

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:41:22 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> When I look at your draft it says Lang = 2*3 Alpha... -6 is CURRENTLY
> alpha4.  Have I missed something?  The last I heard was that -6 (if it
> becomes standard) would have a singleton placed in front of it and be
> treated as a variant... has this changed?  Perhaps you could clarify
> exactly how you would deal with -6 in its present form - which
> includes language families, groups, languages, dialects, written,
> spoken and signed.

A variant wouldn't have a singleton placed in front of it.  You're
probably thinking of an extension.

It's hard for any of us who have never seen the proposed 639-6 to
imagine how it would be used in language tags.

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> Please note that the ABNF for lang is actually:
>
> lang            = 2*3ALPHA           ; shortest ISO 639 code
>                 / registered-lang
> registered-lang = 4*8ALPHA          ; registered language subtag
>
> Which means that language subtags in the registry can be 2 to 8
> characters long. Full stop. So the answer to your question, Debbie, is
> "yes, I can foresee possibly including alpha4 subtags from whatever
> source in the future." If ISO 639-6 were to be considered by some
> future iteration of this WG to be useful in language tags, then its
> codes can be placed in the registry making them valid for use. The
> rules in 3066bis make it exceedingly unlikely that very many, if any,
> alpha4 registered values will be there to get in the way.

If there is any thought whatsoever that Linguasphere codes, or any other
alpha-4 codes, will be allowed as primary language subtags, then we
should drop everything RIGHT NOW and restrict the syntax of
registered-lang subtags to 5 to 8 letters, instead of 4 to 8.
Four-letter primary subtags should be marked "reserved for future
expansion" or some such.  Then, if the decision is made to allow
Linguasphere codes, the syntax can be easily expanded to allow them.
This is much better than crossing our fingers and hoping that a 4-letter
language code never gets registered.

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

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:29:45 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:

> expansion" or some such.  

To be honest... I think this would be sensible.  I cannot say for sure what
will happen within ISO 639.. nobody can... but... the alpha4 codes have been
"on the table" for 3 years and are still there.

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 12 April 2005 06:41
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Great Script Debate Part II: Formats...
>

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:06:33 -0400

> "on the table" for 3 years and are still there.

I think this is a worthwhile thing to do.  We currently have no
registered (that is, non-ISO) language subtags, and there is no
reason not to restrict them to 5*8ALPHA.

-- 
My confusion is rapidly waxing          John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing:            [email-masked]
    I'd use DTDs                        http://www.reutershealth.com
    If they had local trees --          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:42:09 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Just MHO... but what happens if 4 years down the line it isn't
> "forever" and some, as yet unseen, circumstance arises that means the
> whole system needs changing... who knows... but I do accept your
> point.  I am looking at those industries that are going to use this
> RFC's rules to tag content for archive purposes... archives that may
> not be touched for 10 years. I hope you are right :-)

Then again, the Earth could collapse into the Sun tomorrow.  :-)

There's only so much we can do about the absolutely unforeseen.  We're
having enough controversy over making changes to defend against *known*
instabilities.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California