Swiss german, spoken

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

Dear Peter,
I have no doubt that at the end of the day we will agree.

Next you will say that nothing prevents to document lingual community 
classes, kind of voice, accents, wistling, druming, signals, computer 
assisted languages, referents, styles, contexts, multimode, gestures, 
icons, clicking, etc. This will be great because this might be true and if 
you say so, this will be true.

We will then just need you to put it in writting and this will be perfect.

At 03:22 15/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> > I am afraid you are discussing a gray area. The Internet content comes
> > from text. All the issues discussed here are text related.
>
>Incorrect. Issues discussed on this list relate to registration of tags
>"for the identification of languages" -- that is, tags to be used as
>metadata elements to declare the linguistic properties of content in
>Internet and other protocols and applications. There is nothing stated
>anywhere that these tags necessarily apply only to text content.

Except that to register a language you must provide printed references ....
I note your "eclare the linguistic properties of content" which is
someting I could agree with. But which is not exactly the wording of
the document you refer to.

> > Obviously today text
> > is only part of language support and the ecosystem is multilingual,
> > multimedia, multimode, multitechnology, multi-etc. I say that  this
> > Registry is able to answer that need. This is not the way this list
> > sees its own charter and not the charter of the WG-ltru, which are to
> > add script only, meaning restricting RFC 3066 to only one medium.
>
>Incorrect. The charter of the LTRU working group is (among other things)
>to prepare a revision of RFC 3066, a revision which allows for
>distinctions in written form, but which in no way limits the
>applicability of tags to textual content only.

You are right. I am sorry. I should have said "meaning restricting
RFC 3066 enhancements to only one medium". This only confirms
what I say: this is gray area.

One can consult the charter for what it says about multimode and
about multimedia and about multilingual and about multitechnology.

>I would advise any newcomers not to be misled or confused by Mr.
>Morfin's comments.

You are absolutely right. It is always a good advise to carefully read the 
documents (in this case the RFC 3066 and the WG-ltru Charter and Draft due 
to the possible impact on the future of the registrations carried through 
this list), the archives, the text of my mails (I apologise for the 
Franglish which may make them more difficult to grasp: welcome to the 
multilingual world) and the text of the responses received (some are worth 
real attention).

Due to the impact of ISO documents in the langtag registration process and 
of their parallel evolution agreed by everyone (even if the nature of the 
evolution may be different depending on the person) it is advisable to read 
ISO 639-1, -2, the drafts of -3, -4, -5, -6 you might find, ISO 15924 and 
ISO 3166. For those wanting to understand the possible future conflicts 
concerning the registrations discussed here they should consult ISO 11179 
(scalability, updates, nature of the documented information, etc.).

jfc