Subject: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:45:06 -0800

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> But that is what canonicalization is for; to put the tag into a form 
> that can be matched. If the items are out of order, then 4747 won't 
> match correctly.

I'd prefer if we talked about users writing tags and RFC 4647 processors 
rearranging them into an order that can be matched correctly.

> If there is a problem with the process I suggested, then we work to 
> fix the process. Here is another round (informal language at this 
> point):
>
> V3. canonicalization sorts the variants in the following way. Given 
> two variants A and B, apply each of the following steps to A and B, 
> then B and A, stopping when there is a hit.
> 1. if A has no prefix and B has a prefix, A comes before B
> 2. if A is part of a prefix (given the previous non-variant subtags) 
> for B, A comes before B
> 3. if A is alphabetically before B, A comes before B.

I think 2 needs to come before 1 somehow, but otherwise this is a 
noticeable improvement.  I still have my doubts that users will know to 
write "en-fonipa-scouse" instead of "en-scouse-fonipa".  The natural way 
to think of this is "English, Scouse dialect, written in IPA."

> This also exposes a couple of issues with multiple variants that we 
> haven't yet accounted for:
>
> We don't have a validity constraint that a variant can't occur twice 
> (as we do for extensions); we should add it.

I'm pretty sure we used to have a clause, though not a MUST, that tag 
generators SHOULD NOT generate duplicate variants such as 
"en-boont-boont".  It makes sense to me, given that we forbid 
"en-a-aaa-a-bbb", and I don't remember why it was removed.

> We also should add the constraint on registration that we can't have a 
> cycle, eg that we can't have A as a valid prefix for B and B a valid 
> prefix for A.

+1.  I think ietf-languages would be careful to check for this anyway, 
but putting it in the RFC would ensure that they don't forget in case 
things get complex.

As a general reminder, we are not getting any closer to our January 2007 
deadlines and should be conservative about giving ourselves more work 
items.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 

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

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:10:41 +0000

On 23 Feb 2007, at 16:45, scríobh Doug Ewell:
>> ...
> The natural way to think of this is "English, Scouse dialect,  
> written in IPA."

I agree with the above observation.

> As a general reminder, we are not getting any closer to our January  
> 2007 deadlines and should be conservative about giving ourselves  
> more work items.

Again, I agree with the above.
mg

- -
Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *