Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050623224245.046f8e80@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] additional changes...
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BE17E2E@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BE17E2E@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 21:37 23/06/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>Finally, I added a short description for each subtag type in the section 
>on syntax, as pointed out in a recent thread. These probably bear a look 
>as innovations.

Certainly a good thing. But I am afraid this does not address the lack of 
definition of what all this is about and what is a langtag. Let me try to 
clarifiy in using ISO 3166. ISO 3166 is seven different ways to code the 
name of the countries. You use the ISO 3166 for something else (you name it 
a region and you mix M.49). The same as Jon Postel used it to designated 
ccTLDs. You must define somewhere what you are defining with that code.

For example, nothing could prevent us in this WG to call one another by our 
organisation's name. I would call you Quest. etc. But if we do not define 
it, no one will know if I refer to you or to your organisation or to its 
boss, etc.

If I am correct (but I did not look in detail), ISO 3166 codes define the 
name of  the countries. ISO 639-3 are just codes and autonyms or english 
names are attached to them. ISO15924 is a list and I am not sure anyone 
knows what a script can exactly be (not clear in the text and in Michael's 
references to it: usually discussed as a reference to the Unicode 
script.txt file). All this is not ISO 11179 conformant because a metamodel 
must be homogenous and ... clear. ISO 639-4 tries to relate them. This 
would be a good thing. But we do not know yet if it will, and how.

Why is important? Because this permits to describe what a langtag is about. 
Charter says that the Draft must follow ISO. If you define something which 
looks homogenous (you did not do it yet, but you certainly could), but 
which is not in tune with ISO we will have sometimes, somewhere a conflict. 
This may seem remote and unimportant to you today. The same as it was 
remote and unimportant for Harald to define scripts. Sometimes this will be 
a big conflict. All the more than you do not protect yourself in the 
introduction in specifying a restricted/defined scope. And want to be a BCP 47.

One of the major discrepancy you face is about "script", because you are 
specifying "langtag" for a multimedia system and use two general attributes 
(languages and country) and a specialised one (script) making yourself 
incompatible with all the non written modes. To correct that it is enough 
to coin an open description of "script" as the descriptor of the mode, 
using ISO 15924 when it is a written mode.

All this is not complex, but must be done precisely. In an ISO consistent 
way, because the charter says so.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru