Subject: [Ltru] Non-Latin-1 Description fields in RFC 4645bis

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:42:52 -0800

Here are the Description fields in the proposed RFC 4645bis Registry 
that contain non-Latin-1 characters.  This is presented in blocks 
showing the type and value of the subtag, as well as the non-Latin-1 
description, so readers can look up the full context in draft-4645bis-02 
(or -03, when it's ready).

There are two blocks of listings here.  The first is in hex NCRs, as 
they will appear in RFC 4645bis.  This is shown here for the benefit of 
WG members who cannot see non-Latin-1 characters in their e-mail or on 
the Web-based mailing list archive.  The second block is in UTF-8.

Not all of these Description fields are the sole Description field for 
their respective subtag.  For example, the script subtag 'Ethi' also has 
the description "Ethiopic", so technically it doesn't matter for this 
discussion whether the string "Geʻez" is "Latin-script" or not; the 
subtag already has a "Latin-script" description as required.  However, 
all of the non-Latin-1 Description fields are shown here, to help us 
make a well-informed decision.

RFC 4646bis says, "At least one of the 'Description' fields MUST be 
written or transcribed into the Latin script."  It does not say every 
character in that field must have the word LATIN in its Unicode name, 
must have the "Latn" script property in Unicode, must be present in 
Latin-1, Windows-1252, MES-1, etc.  As Frank points out, we don't have 
an operational definition of "Latin script" to guide us here.

All of the characters in these Description fields do have either the 
"Latn" or "Zyyy" (Common) script property in Unicode, and all belong to 
one of the following Unicode blocks:

* Basic Latin
* Latin-1 Supplement
* Latin Extended-A
* Spacing Modifier Letters
* Latin Extended Additional
* General Punctuation

-----

Hex NCRs:

Type: language
Subtag: gwi
Description: Gwich&#x2BC;in

Type: language
Subtag: nqo
Description: N&#x2019;Ko

Type: language
Subtag: pka
Description: Ardham&#x101;gadh&#x12B; Pr&#x101;krit
Description: Pr&#x101;krit, Ardham&#x101;gadh&#x12B;

Type: language
Subtag: pmh
Description: M&#x101;h&#x101;r&#x101;&#x1E63;&#x1E6D;ri Pr&#x101;krit
Description: Pr&#x101;krit, M&#x101;h&#x101;r&#x101;&#x1E63;&#x1E6D;ri

Type: language
Subtag: psu
Description: Sauraseni Pr&#x101;krit
Description: Pr&#x101;krit, Sauraseni

Type: script
Subtag: Ethi
Description: Ge&#x2BB;ez

Type: script
Subtag: Hang
Description: Hang&#x16D;l

Type: script
Subtag: Nkoo
Description: N&#x2019;Ko

-----

UTF-8:

Type: language
Subtag: gwi
Description: Gwichʼin

Type: language
Subtag: nqo
Description: N’Ko

Type: language
Subtag: pka
Description: Ardhamāgadhī Prākrit
Description: Prākrit, Ardhamāgadhī

Type: language
Subtag: pmh
Description: Māhārāṣṭri Prākrit
Description: Prākrit, Māhārāṣṭri

Type: language
Subtag: psu
Description: Sauraseni Prākrit
Description: Prākrit, Sauraseni

Type: script
Subtag: Ethi
Description: Geʻez

Type: script
Subtag: Hang
Description: Hangŭl

Type: script
Subtag: Nkoo
Description: N’Ko

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

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:58:02 -0500

> Description: Pr&#x101;krit, Ardham&#x101;gadh&#x12B;

Side issue.  4646bis-10 says not to include both wrapped and unwrapped descriptions.

-- 
Values of beeta will give rise to dom!          John Cowan
(5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
to rename '.' or '..' entries; see              [email-masked]
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html)

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:31:21 -0800

> Side issue.  4646bis-10 says not to include both wrapped and unwrapped 

Well, I'll be darned.  It does say that, and furthermore it has said 
that since draft-4646bis-01 (2006-12-06, one year ago today), and 
furthermore I've cranked out two 4645bis drafts since that date which 
bogusly included inverted names.  It seems I missed the memo.

New draft-4645bis will be briefly delayed while I rip out the "get 
inverted names" logic from my program that digests the ISO 639-3 files. 
Thanks for catching this.

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:10:16 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:

> that contain non-Latin-1 characters.

Thanks.  Unsurprisingly the hex. NCRs "work for me", i.e. it's clear
which Unicode point they refer to, for the experiment I jump to your

> * Latin-1 Supplement

Oddly TUS 5.0 doesn't mention "English"  in chapter 7, or I missed it.

> * Latin Extended-A

Note to myeelf, need to find out why Sorbian and Frisian are listed
here (in TUS 5.0), and not earlier.

> * Latin Extended Additional

No extended B, C, D, or IPA so far, interesting.  

> Description: Gwichʼin

FAIL after ch.  Is that just my W2K font, or a more general issue
with the glottal stop &x2BC; ?

> Description: N’Ko

PASS.  
 
> Description: Prākrit, Māhārāṣṭri

FAIL (twice before ri), can't do "Latin extended additional" here.

> Description: Geʻez

FAIL, my copy of TUS claims that &x2BB; is Hawaian, not Ethiopian.

Anything else "works for me" (at the moment I can't double check
it easily with other platforms)

 Frank