Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry in record-jar format

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:07:35 -0700

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

>> I've changed "Canonical_Value" to "Canonical" and
>> "Recommended_Prefix" to "Prefix,"
>
> I like it.  I'd like "Related" instead of "Prefix" even better,
> if that's the way to get a "default script" for some languages.
> Otherwise "Prefix" is fine.

Did we have consensus on default script?  I remember a lot of
discussion, but no agreement.

If default script is going to be in the registry, its behavior needs to
be specified in the draft and in the matching draft, and someone needs
to do the expert work of deciding which languages have a "default"
script and which do not.

> Do we need the "redundant" entries ?  As the name says they are
> really redundant.

I'm not sure.  I don't use them myself, except as an informative note in
my validator, as shown with example "zh-Hans":

> Subtag 1: zh
> Language subtag: Chinese (registered 2004-07-06)
>
> Subtag 2: Hans
> Script subtag: Han (Simplified variant) (registered 2004-07-06)
>
> RFC 3066 registered description: simplified Chinese (registered
> 2003-05-30)

-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: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 13:35:34 -0400

> to do the expert work of deciding which languages have a "default"

I think this is out of scope, and only going to get worse with ISO 639-3.
Let's just not go there.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
Any sufficiently-complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc,
informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
        --Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming (rules 1-9 are unknown)

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:38:13 -0700

> discussion, but no agreement.

No, it's a bad idea. That's for matching.

> > Do we need the "redundant" entries ?  As the name says they are

I don't care much either way. What I was saying in my note that the
redundant *comments* on the redundant records were, well, redundant.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 10:07
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry in record-jar format

> > Otherwise "Prefix" is fine.
...

> to do the expert work of deciding which languages have a "default"
...

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:58:58 -0700

> redundant *comments* on the redundant records were, well, redundant.

I don't like them either.  I thought there was a statement in the draft
that "redundant" entries had to have such a comment.  Maybe it has to do
with the passage in Appendix C that grandfathered entries have to have a
comment "indicating... [the] reason for the deprecation."  Maybe it was
part of a discussion months ago.  Maybe I just dreamed it.

In any case, I'm happy to remove the redundant comments (ambiguity
intended) if it's OK with everyone else.

BTW, that whole paragraph in Appendix C is confusing to me:

"Tags that are currently deprecated will be maintained as grandfathered
entries. The record for the grandfathered entry will contain a note
indicating that the entry is 'deprecated' and reason for the
deprecation. For example, the tag "art-lojban" is deprecated and will be
placed in the grandfathered section."

There is no intrinsic relationship between grandfathered and deprecated.
The tag "i-ami" is grandfathered but not deprecated, while the tag "in"
is deprecated but not grandfathered.  Only 28% of the grandfathered tags
are deprecated, and in fact none were until we added the long-missing
provision to give them a whole-tag canonical value.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:27:51 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> Did we have consensus on default script?

No.  We only have "consensus" that the language is at the left
end of a tag, and therefore it cannot have any "prefix".  

If we'd later want to do anything with this field for language
tags, then "prefix" is much better than "recommended_prefix".

We could say en with "prefix" en-Latn, interpreted as default
script.  We can't say en with "prefix" Latn, because Latn is
no prefix.

> If default script is going to be in the registry, its
> behavior needs to be specified in the draft and in the
> matching draft

Yes.  But so far there is no matching draft, and the subject of
the corresponding thread was "preparations for smart matching".

OTOH changing all "Prefix" to "Related" later (if necessary)
would be only a minor point before the "last call" of the draft
registry and registry draft.  Only changing this later would be
a bad idea.
             Bye, Frank