Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:03:33 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> Let me be sure I understand you correctly:
> do Doug and Frank both object to rejecting item [psg.com #900]?
> Can I conclude that both Doug and Frank are strongly in favor of
> removing region subtag 200?

I am strongly in favor of removing region subtag 200, and I believe
Frank is in favor as well (not trying to speak for him, just stating my
belief).

--
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: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 01:16:11 -0400

> Frank is in favor as well (not trying to speak for him, just stating my

I'm weakly in favor of removing it too, on the grounds that it has little
or no practical utility.  Old tags with -CS in them with the semantics
"Czechoslovakia" can be readily rewritten, since neither Czech nor Slovak
varies much across the two countries.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
If a soldier is asked why he kills people who have done him no harm, or a
terrorist why he kills innocent people with his bombs, they can always
reply that war has been declared, and there are no innocent people in an
enemy country in wartime.  The answer is psychotic, but it is the answer
that humanity has given to every act of aggression in history.  --Northrop Frye

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:44:42 -0700

Hi -

> From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200
...
> varies much across the two countries.
...

I'm wary of culling region subtags based on potentially subjective
judgements of utility.  I'd feel better about removing it if someone
made a convincing case that retaining it would cause harm.

Randy

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:41:32 -0700

> > Recently the United Nations Statistics Division added numeric codes
for
> > Guernsey (831) and Jersey (832).  That organization had already
defined
> > a code for the Isle of Man (833), as well as a code for the Channel
> > Islands as a whole (830), which will not be discussed further here.

My gut instinct was that we should add 831 and 832 to the registry, and
simultaneously remove 830.  But that is the kind of invention and
presumption that, as John Cowan said, is really better suited to the
role of ietf-languages than this WG.  (Not that some of us won't be
right back there when this is over!)

Additionally, Joseph Martinez (ISO 3166/MA Secretariat) told me that
despite the addition of 831 and 832 to UN M.49, the corresponding
reserved code elements GG and JE will not be added to ISO 3166 unless
the British Standards Institution requests them.  I don't have a contact
at BSI, and Joseph didn't provide one, so I really don't have a clue
whether BSI plans to pursue this or not.

Despite the softening of the "Canonical" field in RFC 3066bis to
"Preferred-Value," it would still be unfortunate if we added 831 and
832, then shortly thereafter had to deprecate them in favor of GG and
JE.  So I agree with John that we should not add the numeric codes.

However... sorry to complicate things, but the situation is exactly the
same for the Isle of Man.  It has a UN numeric code (833) and an ISO
3166 reserved code element (IM) that would probably be promoted to full
"assigned" status in a heartbeat, right alongside GG and JE, if BSI
requested it.  So we should really do the same thing for 833 that we do
for 831 and 832, whatever that is.  My proposal is to remove 833 from
the registry as well.

And whatever subtags are eventually assigned (or not) to Guernsey and
Jersey, it seems evident that two separate subtags would be more
appropriate than the combination code 830 for "Channel Islands."  So I
also propose removing 830 from the registry.

This would actually have the nice side effect that all of the remaining
numeric region subtags would be macrogeographical in nature, not
stand-ins for "missing" alpha-2 subtags.

Comments, please, as long as they do not impede the draft (this is
actually an ltru-initial ticket, not ltru-registry).

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:56:50 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> As a technical contributor:
>
> From what I've been able to glean from secondary sources (I'm to cheap
> to purchase this rather expensive multi-part specification) I don't
> see how ISO 11179 is really applicable to our work, and I've seen no
> statement of how applying it would increase our work's utility.
> Consequently, I suggest we reject this item.

I did read, or rather skim through, the on-line version to which a kind
soul directed me.  While it seems quite appropriate for a more ambitious
type of registry than ours, one with multiple interrelated tables, I
feel it would be overkill for our effort.  Therefore, I give Randy's
suggestion a big +1.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:14:04 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> I'd feel better about removing it if someone made a
> convincing case that retaining it would cause harm.

I'd restart my questions why we don't have the UN numbers of
other "lost regions" like the old "DE" or the old "SK", and
the "rough consensus" is that thinking about these questions
could harm the mental health of some WG members... <gd&r>

Seriously, adding deprecated numbers for "lost regions" now
is a can of worms.  Let's add 831 + 832 and be done with it.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:14:55 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> that is the kind of invention and presumption that, as John
> Cowan said, is really better suited to the role of
> ietf-languages than this WG.  (Not that some of us won't be

At one point in time you'll have an initial registry, with the
help of the languages list or not, that is "date B".  And if
at "date B" GG, IM, and JE are not in the registry then you'd
need 831, 832, and 833.

The UN page has now 830 _and_ 831 + 832, that's certainly odd.
Maybe they have their own "transition period" (?)  Or it's a
bug on their Web page.  Or they have serious problems with our
"same piece of..." rule ;-)

Or they keep 830 for Sark, Alderney, and anything that doesn't
necessarily belong to 831 and 832 - no, that's probably wrong.
 
> unless the British Standards Institution requests them.

We could appeal to their Queen, oops, Duke.  Delaying "date B"
until that issue is resolved is no plan.  If there's a delay
anyway for the fine tuning of the Suppress-Scripts it's okay.

> we should really do the same thing for 833 that we do for 831
> and 832, whatever that is.  My proposal is to remove 833 from
> the registry as well.

No problem for a timestamp before "date B".  But if the initial
registry completely excludes three regions, or if we have to
wait, then I'm not yet convinced that that's a good idea.  Bye.

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:16:31 -0400

> for 831 and 832, whatever that is.  My proposal is to remove 833 from

+1

> also propose removing 830 from the registry.

-1; see below.

> stand-ins for "missing" alpha-2 subtags.

830 actually is a macrogeographical region, though it's a *small*
macrogeographical region.  As I pointed out before, Jersey and Guernsey
actually don't share anything at all except their Duke and their TV
station.

> "same piece of..." rule ;-)

Nothing inconsistent about it; 831 and 832 are national territories,
830 is a region.

> necessarily belong to 831 and 832 - no, that's probably wrong.

Sark and Alderney, like Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, and Lihou, are part
of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, so part of 831.  The Bailiwick of Jersey
includes only the island of Jersey and some uninhabited islets.

-- 
Some people open all the Windows;       John Cowan
wise wives welcome the spring           [email-masked]
by moving the Unix.                     http://www.reutershealth.com
  --ad for Unix Book Units (U.K.)       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        (see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/unix3image.gif)

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:18:40 +0200

John.Cowan wrote:
 
> 830 actually is a macrogeographical region, though it's a
> *small* macrogeographical region.

It's not listed in the part with the macro-regions on their
page, it's still where it always was.

> Jersey and Guernsey actually don't share anything at all
> except their Duke and their TV station.

If that's also true for their languages we don't need 830 ;->

Let's just stick to the plan, whatever is true at "date B",
in Doug's "48 hours", gets a number.  If they moved 830 to
"obsolete" don't list it, if they moved it to "macro-region"
keep it, and if their Web site is still unclear toss a coin.
 
> Sark and Alderney, like Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, and Lihou,
> are part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, so part of 831.

Very vaguely I recall something special about Sark, asking
Google, <http://www.sark.gov.gg/static/>  It was the "feudal"
Constitution, fascinating pages.  For those more interested
in languages than in regions, they mention 'Sercquiaise' on
the history page.
                  Bye, Frank

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 07:46:18 -0700

I agree with Frank. We should just follow the policy that we set down.

‎Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:53:19 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor, I also agree with Frank and Mark.

As a WG co-chair, I'd like to recommend that any AUTH48 changes
to the initial registry should be posted to both this list and
the ietf-languages list.

Randy

> From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>; "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 7:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey
>

> I agree with Frank. We should just follow the policy that we set down.
?> Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:34:51 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:14 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200
>
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
...

I'm having trouble figuring out your comment.  Are you arguing
FOR or AGAINST removing region subtag 200?

Randy

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:49:21 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST removing region subtag 200?

Let Doug remove it.  But I'm worried about the TL -> XX bug,
we discussed this for weeks, why is it still incorrect in -04 ?

Could we please run a simulation, Doug plays tag reviewer, and
we fire some registration requests (based on some hypothetical
events like "TL" wants to be "XX", or the UN assigns 888 to
"Somaliland" - a part of the former and now defunct "Somalia")

                             Bye, Frank

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:43:48 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:49 PM

> we discussed this for weeks, why is it still incorrect in -04 ?

Could you point me to the specific text that was proposed?
The best way to ensure that an i-d addresses your concerns
is to propose specific text.

...

This would go faster if you'd just list each of the scenarios where
you think the outcome specified by the current i-d would be
undesirable, and propose specific text to rectify the problem.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:38:33 +0200

> Could you point me to the specific text that was proposed?

"Missing definition of conflict" was discussed in the thread
<http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

> is to propose specific text.

An agreement with the editors about the underlying issue is
also okay, but obviously I forgot to check the outcome, sorry.

Specific text proposed in my parallel message for #1026, see
also <http://mid.gmane.org/[email-masked]>

>> Could we please run a simulation, Doug plays tag reviewer
[...]
> This would go faster if you'd just list each of the scenarios

Now I did this, 1st scenario, let's assume TL manages to get a
new code XX, what happens in the registry (after date-B) ?

2nd scenario, UN M.49 assigns number 888 to Somaliland.  What
happens in the registry ?  Later ISO 3166-1 assigns code SX for
the new Somaliland.  What happens in the registry ?

> where you think the outcome specified by the current i-d

I'd expect that TL is deprecated with new Preferred-Value XX
in the 1st scenario.  And I proposed text that would allow to
update Preferred-Value: TL (in the old TP record) to XX.

In the 2nd scenario I expect 888 to be added.  I proposed text
that idetifies UN M.49 as input source.  At the moment that's
not the case in 2.2.4 number 3. points A..D, especially C.  We
would need a new case "region with a number but not in 3166-1".

In 3.3 it's (as already proposed) the addition of "UN M.49" to
"bullet 8".  This is also my third (?) request to replace the
bullet-lists by numbered lists if there are too many bullets.

And finally in the 2nd scenario after 888 got SX I'd expect
that SX is added to the registry.  Preferred-Value: 888 isn't
optimal, but waiting for the Duke of Normandy or whatever the
problem with GG, IM, and JE might be is no option.  Bye, Frank

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:16:08 +0100

Hi All

An issue has been raised on the IETF with regard to the principle of
language tags for written, spoken (and signed) to be registered distinctly
as opposed to an "umbrella" tag that was perhaps designed initially for
written but is now being used to cover all.

As the draft for ISO 639-6 currently supports separate tags for these -
language, written_language, spoken_language, signed_language - perhaps it
would be prudent to incorporate some text and a mechanism within 3066bis to
support the registering of such specific tags. 

Personally, I believe that in the future there will be a real need for
differentiating between them; it can only enhance archival and retrieval
processes.

Kind regards

Debbie Garside
www.linguasphere.com

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:54:52 -0700

Hi Frank -

> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:38 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] #1026 (was: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200)
>
> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
...

Forgive me for being dense, but neither of those two messages says
how it would address issue #900, the question of subtag 200.
(I'm not arguing whether they do or they don't - they're just not
explicit.)

As a process geek with relatively little interest in language tagging,
I have great sympathy for anyone trying to make sense of these
stream-of-consciousness postings, and am baffled by your moving
it into the thread for issue #1026, unless you're going to argue that
there should be a common underlying principle.  (If that's what you're doing,
it would help me a lot if you'd actually say so, and then state what
it is, and then claim that it addresses issues #foo, #bar, and #bas.)
Otherwise, it's *really* hard for me to tell who is advocating what, further
delaying closure.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:10:18 -0700

Hi -

This has been assigned issue number [psg.com #1033]

> From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 6:16 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Written Spoken Signed
...
...

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:46:04 -0700

Hi -

(as a technical contributor)

...

I have some questions, from the perspective of matching.  How would I specify:
(1) I am willing to receive web content in Yiddish if it is spoken, or written
with Latin script, but not signed or in its "suppressed" Hebrew script?
(2) I am willing to receive web content written in Gothic (either its native
script, or its "suppressed" latin script), but not spoken or signed?
(3) I am willing to receive web content in German or any of its dialects if
written, but only "standard Hochdeutsch" or "Mannemerisch" if spoken, and not
at all if signed.

I clearly understand the rationale for making the signed forms distinct, and
why there is value to representing that in the language tag.  It seems that
the "spoken" form would, if we represent it at all in a language tag, be simplest
if handled like just another script.

Randy

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 05:50:44 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Forgive me for being dense, but neither of those two messages
> says how it would address issue #900, the question of subtag
> 200.

The #900 stuff is old.  See subject, I was talking about #1026.

For #900 you know that Doug and I want the 200 to be removed.
I'm not sure what John, Mark, and you wanted to do about 200.

> I have great sympathy for anyone trying to make sense of
> these stream-of-consciousness postings, and am baffled by
> your moving it into the thread for issue #1026, unless 
> you're going to argue that there should be a common 
> underlying principle.

|>>> Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST removing region subtag 200?

|>> Let Doug remove it.  But I'm worried about the TL -> XX
|>> bug, we discussed this for weeks, why is it still incorrect
|>> in -04 ?
 
|> Could you point me to the specific text that was proposed?
|> The best way to ensure that an i-d addresses your concerns
|> is to propose specific text.

I only answered your question, and because I knew that your
question and my answer don't belong to #900 I even changed the
subject: #1026 (was: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200)

Now I change it again stripping the old (was: ...) part.  Bye.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:10:25 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:50 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: #1026
...
> subject: #1026 (was: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200)

My question was about issue #900, motivated by my inability to
figure out what the messages you referred to had to do with that question.

> Now I change it again stripping the old (was: ...) part.  Bye.

Here's where I think we are  Frank and Doug want to remove region
subtag 200 from the initial registry.  John "weakly" supports removing it.
So, I'll read this as a rough consensus to change the status of this
item to "resolved", and Doug should ensure that this code is absent
from the initial registry.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:31:16 +0100

> with Latin script, but not signed or in its "suppressed" Hebrew script?

Each linguistic entity has its own 4alpha representation, as well as its
parent 4alpha representation.  In addition, each entity has a level code
which designates "Language" "Written Language" "Spoken Language" "Signed
Language".  Therefore, you can search for the two relevant 4alpha
representations.  There would be no suppressed script; Yiddish in Hebrew
script would also have a 4alpha representation which can be included or
excluded from your search.

> script, or its "suppressed" latin script), but not spoken or signed?

Again, search for the correct 4alpha representations.

> written, but only "standard Hochdeutsch" or "Mannemerisch" if spoken, and

For this next one I hope I have understood you correctly... please remember
I am not a linguist :-)

Slightly different, in this case you would choose the 4alpha representation
for written_German and all children (remember the parent 4alpha
representation is available for each entity) but NOT "written_standard
Hochdeutsch" and NOT "written_Mannemerisch" (if I undertand you correctly).
You would also include the 4alpha representations for spoken "standard
Hochdeutsch" and "Mannemerisch" in your query.  Signed would not be returned
unless you asked for it specifically or at language level (umbrella). 

Regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 12 June 2005 04:46
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1033] Written Spoken Signed
> 
> Hi -
>

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:56:50 -0700

I don't care about having in 200.

‎Mark