Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050903010528.05df5d60@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:57:17 +0200
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: At least one prefix for variant (GenArt) #18
In-Reply-To: <4318825C.3030902@icu-project.org>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0CA91542@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<20050901165823.GB17084@NYCMJCOWA2>
	<43175FD0.3232@xyzzy.claranet.de>
	<6.2.3.4.2.20050902140654.04d97860@mail.afrac.org>
	<4318825C.3030902@icu-project.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

At 18:48 02/09/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
> > I note that Mark wants to be able to support en-189-us? Would that be
> > for voice subtags? Would be an interesting move.
>
>Incorrect. I was suggesting reserving certain subtags for future use 
>as either scripts/orthographies or regions. But "en-189-us" doesn't 
>match what I said; look at the ABNF:
>- scripts would always be 4 characters, and
>- regions would always be 2 or 3 characters.

Dear Mark,
correct. I misread the proposition.

>So your example is invalid under both the current proposal and under 
>my suggested addition of reservations for the future, since your 
>example has 2 region codes in a row.
>More realistic examples would be:
>
>el-Ply0-GR // Ply0 is an example of a possible future use, e.g. polytonic
>or
>en-PR0 // US2 is an example of a possible future use, e.g. a 
>historic region like Prussia
>
>Frankly (or Ellermanly), regions are not that interesting, because 
>variants are adjacent in the tags, and thus would have the right 
>fallback behavior.
>However, script/orthographies are interesting, since they *can't* be 
>replaced by variants in fallback; you get the wrong answer.

So, you still do not want to document the multimodal aspects? This 
keeps the draft in the ISO 639 script oriented "mood" I would say? Up 
to now Addison and you responded quickly to protect the ABNF against 
my propositions. It lead to a far better clarity than in Dec last, 
and reduced the risks of conflicts with the URI-tags. Does that mean 
that you abandon us the voice/sign/icon.. documentation?

I have no problem with that, but our MPEG liaison would like to know.
Take care.
jfc


jfc







_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru