Subject: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:07:24 -0700

All,

I have just completed and posted my edits to draft-07. I have not yet 
submitted them to the ID Editor... as Martin points out, the integer 
burning forge is currently on hiatus, pending IETF #69.

However, the edits are all in place and can be used to further the 
discussion. Note that I have not incorporated the proposed text related 
to Macrolanguage. However I have incorporated my proposed UTF-8 changes.

A diff from draft-06 can be accessed here:

   http://tinyurl.com/2o7t6m

The documents posted are:

   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.html
   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.txt
   http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-07.xml

Happy commenting.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:21:59 -0700

I don't see the following in the text, although I believe there was rough
consensus. You have something there, but the language is not nearly forceful
enough).

The 'mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag SHOULD NOT be used. According to
ISO 639, it is used to identify linguistic content whose language is known
but which does not *currently* have a corresponding subtag. It is thus
intrinsically unstable -- the addition of other codes in the future can
render its application invalid at any point without any warning -- and hence
incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 47. It is thus always
preferable to use other subtags: either "und" or -- with prior agreement --
private use subtags.

See:

date
Jun 16, 2007 8:29 AM
subject
Suggested language for "mis" (Re: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis")

Mark

-- 
Mark

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:31:28 -0700

The text in the editor's copy, btw is:

--
The 'mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag is used to identify 
linguistic content whose language is known but for which no subtag has 
been defined. It is intended for use languages not otherwise categorized 
or in cases in which the range of subtags is constrained. It SHOULD NOT 
be used except when other means of identifying the language are not 
available. For example, a library application might limit the list of 
subtags to those associated with the codes defined by the [MARC21] 
standard. The 'mis' subtag might be used by this application for 
languages not included in that set.
--

I note that your text is what I said I would put into the I-D, in this 
message:

   http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/8019

Must have missed it in cleanup.

Addiso

Mark Davis wrote:
> I don't see the following in the text, although I believe there was 
> rough consensus. You have something there, but the language is not 
> nearly forceful enough).
> 
> The ' mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag SHOULD NOT be used. 
> According to ISO 639, it is used to identify linguistic content whose 
> language is known but which does not *currently* have a corresponding 
> subtag. It is thus intrinsically unstable -- the addition of other codes 
> in the future can render its application invalid at any point without 
> any warning -- and hence incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 
> 47. It is thus always preferable to use other subtags: either "und" or 
> -- with prior agreement -- private use subtags.
> 
> See:
> 
> 
> 	date	
> 	Jun 16, 2007 8:29 AM	 
> 
> 	subject	
> On 7/17/07, *Addison Phillips* <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     All,
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:41:05 -0700

NB> In inserting this text, I edited it for flow and formatting. I 
eliminated some redundant (and, in my view, slightly hyperbolic) text. 
The inserted text reads:

--
<t>The 'mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag identifies content whose 
language is known but which does not currently have a corresponding 
subtag. This subtag SHOULD NOT be used. Because the addition of other 
codes in the future can render its application invalid, it is inherently 
unstable and hence incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 47. It 
is always preferable to use other subtags: either 'und' or (with prior 
agreement) private use subtags.</t>
--

I moved the definition to the first sentence so that this item is more 
like the surrounding items.

Addison

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:21:26 -0700

ok

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:03:23 -0700

In section 4.2:

   Thus a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic,
   Cyrillic script, as used in Columbia) is perfectly valid but ought to
   be avoided because it has no relationship with any real language.

I'm reluctant to say anything has *no* relationship with reality and that it "ought" (effectively read SHOULD) be avoided. I'd be happier with something like this:

   Thus a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic,
   Cyrillic script, as used in Columbia) is perfectly valid but is not
   likely to be useful as that combination of attributes is unlikely to
   coincide in a real instance of language usage.

Peter

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:15:26 -0700

Good point. I'll make that change.

Addison

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:56:57 +0900

Okay, but please change 'coincide in' to 'coincide with'.

Regards,    Martin.

>>    coincide in a real instance of language usage.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:09:27 -0700

The paragraph actually says:

<t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag can be valid yet 
meaningless. This is unavoidable with a generative system like the 
language subtag mechanism. Thus a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, 
Cyrillic script, as used in Columbia) is perfectly valid but is not 
likely to be useful, as that combination of attributes is unlikely 
represent some real instance of language usage.</t>

Addison

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:28:09 -0700

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[email-masked]]

> Okay, but please change 'coincide in' to 'coincide with'.

I wouldn't make that change.

> >>    coincide in a real instance of language usage.

The elliptic content is "coincide [with one another] in a real instance...".

But there is a real grammatical error. Please correct to: "...that combination of attributes are unlikely..."

Peter

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:32:12 -0700

> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[email-masked]]

> represent some real instance of language usage.</t>

Change to "...is unlikely to represent..."

Peter

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:40:17 -0700

Done. Doug also noted that one.

Addison

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:59:15 -0700

Hi -

As a native speaker of English (listen to the movie "Fargo"
for the dialect)...

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Martin Duerst" <[email-masked]>; "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
>

I agree that "coincide in" is correct in this context,
and that "coincide with" would change the meaning
into something other than what we'd like.

> But there is a real grammatical error. Please correct to: "...that combination of attributes are unlikely..."

No, "is" is grammatically correct.  However, the sentence *is* odd.
Wordsmiths might consider are paraphrase:

   For example,  a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, as used in Columbia,
   written using Cyrillic script) is valid but not likely to be useful, since the
  combination of attributes it employs are not likely to occur together in
  actual language use.

Randy

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:25:09 +0000

On 21 Jul 2007, at 05:59, scríobh Randy Presuhn:

> ...
> No, "is" is grammatically correct.

True.

> However, the sentence *is* odd.

I agree.

> Wordsmiths might consider are paraphrase:

I do not understand the previous line. Perhaps it is missing a word  
or two.

>   combination of attributes it employs are not likely to occur  

I find 2 occurrences of "unlikely" better than the 2 of "not likely"  
which Randy suggests above (to replace the original text of 1 "not  
likely" and I "unlikely" in same sentence), but this point is hardly  
worth the candle, as attempts to clean up the English have been  
largely abandoned, or else sparked too much debate.

However, here goes with one more attempt:

"For example, although a tag such as 'ar-Cyrl-CO' (Arabic, as used in  
Columbia,
written in Cyrillic script) is valid, it is [most] unlikely to be of  
use, because
such combination of attributes is unlikely to occur in actual  
language use."

mg

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

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:51:31 -0700

Marion Gunn wrote:
 > such combination of attributes is unlikely to occur in actual language
 > use."
 >

I note that it is useful to look at the actual editor's copy when 
suggesting minor editorial changes. Upon reflection, I found the current 
sentence to be a bit of a run-on. I've taken your suggestion of 
'unlikely' and edited further such that the paragraph now reads:

<t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag can be valid yet 
meaningless. This is unavoidable with a generative system like the 
language subtag mechanism. For example, a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" 
(Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is perfectly valid. 
However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag, as it represents an unlikely 
combination of language attributes that is probably unrelated to any 
real language usage.</t>

After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on draft-08. I'm 
always happy to consider editorial changes that improve the text.

Addison

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:13:40 +0000

On 31 Jul 2007, at 15:51, scríobh Addison Phillips:

> ... I've taken your suggestion of 'unlikely' and edited further  
> such that the paragraph now reads:
>
> language subtag mechanism. For example, a tag such as "ar-Cyrl- 
> CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is perfectly  
> valid. However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag, as it represents  
> an unlikely combination of language attributes that is probably  
> unrelated to any real language usage.</t>

Much better.

> After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on draft-08.

After five mins from now, I'll to catch what is left of today's  
summer sun (it is now 17:14 in Ireland).

> I'm always happy to consider editorial changes that improve the text.

And after any extended period of proofreading for profit, as I do,  
one is always happier - nay, more, often safer - restraining oneself  
from commenting on any other texts whatsoever!.:-)
mg

- -

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:35:12 -0700

> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.

"Meaningless" is exactly the wrong word. The advantage of a generative
system is that everything is meaningful -- the semantics of ar-Cyrl-CO are
clear. It is like a phrase "green-haired Afgan astrophysicist knitters".
Perfectly meaningful even if the denotation is the null set.

This should be rephrased as:

<t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag may be valid and meaningful,
yet there may not be any content to which it would apply. For example, a tag
such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is
perfectly valid and meaningful. However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag,
as it represents an unlikely combination of language attributes which
probably don't actually occur together (at least as yet).</t>

Mark

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:37:11 +0000

Much better.

> After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on draft-08.

Five mins from now, I'll need to catch what is left of today's summer  
sun (it is now 17:14 in Ireland).

- -