Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050316162703.0386d0f0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:39:50 +0100
To: Panagiotis Sikas <sikas@ics.forth.gr>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42384CF3.9020406@ics.forth.gr>
References: <20050315110003.5AC5961BF4@eikenes.alvestrand.no>
	<0f3301c529f3$8e2f8d80$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<42380898.1030905@ics.forth.gr> <p06110436be5de1e8a5c4@[10.0.1.2]>
	<42384CF3.9020406@ics.forth.gr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: Distinguishing Greek and Greek
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

On 16:12 16/03/2005, Panagiotis Sikas said:
>What I see here is the need for additional subtags ?????

The point where we disagree is that the currently proposed langtag uses 
three identifying descriptors:

- language: ISO 693
- script: ISO 15924
- country: ISO 3166

and I say we need 2 more preference descriptors to be level with what Word 
uses and the WG-ltru charter implies:

- referent: depending on situation and language it may be different 
authoritative things. Word uses dictionnary.
- style: the environment of use.

Comments:
1. the tag can have a consistant default strategy which makes the lang3tag 
acceptable with all the existing and most of the future context - hence a 
total retro-compatibility.
2. this permits to adapt the lang5tag to any network/community and even 
individual granularity.

This obviously permits to support all the Greek version, flavors, local 
idioms, accent, sex, age, etc. (as in voice reader for blind people, 
automated public information system, etc.).

jfc


=====================================================
For your convenience:
Draft: 		http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00.txt
Charter: 	http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
gmane: 	http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru
If you were Bcced for information and not familliar with the IETF process:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-02.txt
=====================================================
Jon Postel (RFC 1591): "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list
  as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with
  the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which
entities should be and should not be on that list."
=====================================================
Brian Carpenter (RFC 1958/3.2): "If there are several ways of doing the
same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context
or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the
same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to.
Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements."
=====================================================
It seems that what works for countries and ISO 3166 since 1978 should
apply to languages and to ISO 693.
=====================================================

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages