Subject: [Ltru] proto-draft-10

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:36:25 -0800

I have posted a version of draft-10 to inter-locale this morning. It 
includes my proposed edits to remove extlang from standardization.

You will note that I have not removed extlang from the ABNF: I have 
reverted it to "reserved for future use". I have also more-or-less 
reverted the section on extlang in the body of the document. I have not 
yet gone through and examined for additional changes (to irregular, for 
example).

See:

  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-10.html
  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-10.txt
  http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-10.xml

Diff is at:

  http://tinyurl.com/2hle7o

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: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:03:09 +0100

Addison Phillips wrote:
 
> You will note that I have not removed extlang from the ABNF

I also note that it still contains the fantasy island codes,
Chairs, please produce the consensus for this modification
in -09.

It still contains "Latin transliterations of descriptions",
without saying what Latin is, or why the subtag review list
should create "transliterations" when the source standard
didn't bother for whatever reasons.

It still contains the unused 5*8ALPHA "registered languages"
instead of reviving the good tradition of i-whatever tags
for this in the times of 639-3 likely unnecessary loophole.

As a consequence of not removing the extlang syntax it still
contains the answer 42 instead of a much more MIME friendly
limit 30 (or 31 for a 639-6 language).

Allegedly it's unclear that a subtag can be "undrepecated"
if say (in theory) ISO 3166-1 revives FX.  Or rather Doug
said that it's clearly not allowed, IMO that would be a bug.

It still allows "generic" variants without prefix, they're
known to be cumbersome (fonipa + fonupa).  

There's a typo s/SHOULD NOT/should not/ in the 1901 + 1996
example, don't use 2119 keywords in examples.  Far too much
"MUSTard" in RFC 4646 and the draft, compare RFC 2119:

| Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used
| with care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only
| be used where it is actually required for interoperation
| or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm

 Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 17:59:47 -0500

> for this in the times of 639-3 likely unnecessary loophole.

I agree on the "likely unnecessary", but not on the "good
tradition".  That particular tradition is a bad one; we're
better off with one-part language subtags, even in the
escape hatch.

> | or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm

That's for protocols.  We are trying to constrain the behavior
of human beings, a far more difficult set of objects.

-- 
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      [email-masked]
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:47:12 +0100

> better off with one-part language subtags, even in the

Okay, then we might agree to disagree.  The main difference 
between "liaden" and "i-liaden" is that the former allows
"liaden-Hant-fonupa" while the latter has to be used as is.

There are no registered languages, so what's the point of
allowing the full set of BCP 47 features for them ?  For
cases like i-default I don't miss any default-Hant-fonupa
opportunity.

As explained earlier  5*8( ALPHA )  limits implementation
freedom if there would be ever a variant and a language
using the same subtag.  

> of human beings, a far more difficult set of objects.

If we don't like chapter 6 of RFC 2119 we should say so instead
of "to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]".  There's a
similar issue in the Last Called 2821bis, and I proposed a way
to quote RFC 2119 excluding chapter 6: 

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/6260/match=2119>

 Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:35:33 -0500

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> Okay, then we might agree to disagree.  The main difference between
> "liaden" and "i-liaden" is that the former allows "liaden-Hant-fonupa"
> while the latter has to be used as is.

Quite so.

> There are no registered languages, so what's the point of allowing
> the full set of BCP 47 features for them ?

Because if and when we need them, there's no reason they
shouldn't interoperate with the rest of the system.

> For cases like i-default I don't miss any default-Hant-fonupa
> opportunity.

i-default is very special.

> As explained earlier  5*8( ALPHA )  limits implementation freedom if
> there would be ever a variant and a language using the same subtag.

Rules for the first subtag don't apply to later subtags, period.
The fact that you'd like them all to be unique doesn't make it so.

-- 
Take two turkeys, one goose, four               John Cowan
cabbages, but no duck, and mix them             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
together. After one taste, you'll duck          [email-masked]
soup the rest of your life.
        --Groucho

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:09:33 -0800

> The fact that you'd like them all to be unique doesn't make it so.

Moreover, it has never been the case that subtags were unique. Witness: 
"de-de".

Addison

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:14:58 +0100

> Moreover, it has never been the case that subtags were unique. 
> Witness: "de-de".

With a case sensitive decomposition into regularized subtags it's
de-DE and "de" != "DE".  The 5*8( ALPHA )  case is the only case
where "regularized" subtags starting with ALPHA can't be used 
directly as xml:id (if there happens to be an identical variant
subtag).

 Frank

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:41:44 +0100

John Cowan wrote:
 
>> There are no registered languages, so what's the point
>> of allowing the full set of BCP 47 features for them ?
 
> shouldn't interoperate with the rest of the system.

It was a mistake that 4646 ended up as BCP instead of PS.
For a standards track document features that aren't used
or otherwise not interoperable are withdrawn.

What kind of "if and when we need them" is this, where the
proposed language wasn't good enough for ISO 639-3 ?  

For Sealandish as used on Sealand i-sealand should suffice.
Sealand is one of the few serious micronation articles on
en.wikipedia.org, others are best described as "crackpot".

>> For cases like i-default I don't miss any 
>> default-Hant-fonupa opportunity.
 
> i-default is very special.

I also don't miss klingon-Blis-AQ, I picked an i-whatever 
where I was sure that it's not deprecated.  The "klingon"
case also shows that anything surviving giggle tests gets
an ISO 639 code sooner or later, and after that we could
use tlh-Blis-AQ as we see fit.  

And we can also use x-klingon-Blis-AQ when i-klingon isn't
good enough for whatever we're up to.  

 Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:05:48 -0500

> proposed language wasn't good enough for ISO 639-3 ?  
c

ISO 639 RA/JAC won't always necessarily be run by the sensible people
who control it now.

> en.wikipedia.org, others are best described as "crackpot".

They speak, or spoke, English there, and maybe a bit of Dutch.
Countries aren't the issue: languages are.

> use tlh-Blis-AQ as we see fit.  

Indeed.

-- 
John Cowan    [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
This great college [Trinity], of this ancient university [Cambridge],
has seen some strange sights. It has seen Wordsworth drunk and Porson
sober. And here am I, a better poet than Porson, and a better scholar
than Wordsworth, somewhere betwixt and between.  --A.E. Housman

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 04:21:47 +0100

John Cowan wrote:

 [i-sealand] 
> They speak, or spoke, English there, and maybe a bit of 
> Dutch.  Countries aren't the issue: languages are.

And a bit of de-x-nazi at a critical period of the post-war
Sealand history.  At later periods they might have spoken
anything resulting in an increased pagerank for their Web
pages and related activities (selling passports, etc.)

There's no substantial difference between micronation and
registered language, sooner or later somebody will try it
for (putting it mildly) non-linguistic purposes.

 Frank

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:20:11 -0500

> directly as xml:id (if there happens to be an identical variant

Subtags aren't case-sensitive, either, no matter how much you'd
like them to be.

-- 
There is no real going back.  Though I          John Cowan
may come to the Shire, it will not seem         [email-masked]
the same; for I shall not be the same.          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth,
and a long burden.  Where shall I find rest?           --Frodo