Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613223124.044bbeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:37:42 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>,
	"Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BBB8CF7@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BBB8CF7@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Subject: RE: Swiss german, spoken
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

At 19:26 13/06/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>There is a working group (LTRU): you have not deigned to work with it.
>You have no solution or cannot demonstrate one, and, if you do, this is 
>not the place for it, LTRU is.

Dear Addison,
I will not comment about "you have not deigned" which burst roars of laugh 
in here. They repeated with your "you have no solution".... Good to have 
some fun sometimes on this list.

I know you cherish your Draft but here we discuss how to permit users (in 
this case Karen) to register a langtag they can use today and relate to 
their own standard for the pictures they produce. Not next year/decade when 
ISO 639-3 and your Draft can be used.

This can only be addressed today in using "i-" or "x-". I am happy with 
both: we are totally flexible as we use double indexing.  The only 
difference is if there is a list consensus endorsed by the Chair (he is the 
reviewer) or not.

The problem is registering "i-gsw" or "x-gsw" alone looks silly. This is 
not the case if we register all projected ISO 639-3 and ISO 639-5 in 
"i-xxx". We have no problem is deciding that:

- not yet ISO 639-3 subtags belong to ISO 639-5. I think this does not 
violate the ISO 639-3 concept. And we will never have a -3/-5 conflict.
- we will from now on enter ISO 639-5 as "i-" tags.

If this is not agreeable to this list, I have no problem reverting to "x-". 
I will the publish a BCP documenting that we will use "x-0", "x-3", "x-5", 
"x-6" for experimentation. "x-0" will be our direct indexing, "x-1", "x-2" 
"x-3", "x-5", "x-6" will use the string code of the concrned ISO table. 
This will leave three characters or more to document all the menus Karen 
needs. RFC 3066 format provides data about geographic/lingual communities. 
We will use ISO 3166-2, UN.9 and the X.121/E.164, Linguasphere, etc.

The fun is that "x-9" will stand this way for languages and "xp--" for 
IDNs. It makes a simple and consistent extended system. Fully operational 
in a few days.

Question: canwe/I use "i/x--zzz" or is there any known unforesseen 
restriction?

Any objection?
All the best.
jfc





_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages