WG Action: Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

Martin Duerst duerst at w3.org
Wed Mar 9 00:10:55 CET 2005

I know. I already complained.    Regards,    Martin.

At 07:46 05/03/09, Misha Wolf wrote:
 >These links don't work:
 > >To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
 > >Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/index.html
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
 >[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
 >Sent: 08 March 2005 22:37
 >To: ietf-languages at iana.org
 >Subject: Fwd: WG Action: Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
 >For your information.
 > >To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
 > >Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>,Martin Duerst
 > ><mduerst at w3.org>, ltru at ietf.org
 > >From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply at ietf.org>
 > >Subject: WG Action: Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
 > >A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applicationa Area.
 > >For additional information, please contact the Area Directors
 > >or the WG Chairs.
 > >
 > >+++
 > >
 > >Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
 > >-------------------------------------
 > >
 > >Current Status: Active Working Group
 > >
 > >Chair(s):
 > >Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
 > >Martin Duerst <mduerst at w3.org>
 > >
 > >Applications Area Director(s):
 > >Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>
 > >Scott Hollenbeck <sah at 428cobrajet.net>
 > >
 > >Applications Area Advisor:
 > >Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>
 > >
 > >Mailing Lists:
 > >General Discussion: ltru at ietf.org
 > >To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
 > >Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/index.html
 > >
 > >Description of Working Group:
 > >
 > >RFC 3066 and its predecessor, RFC 1766, defined language tags for use
 > >on the Internet. Language tags are necessary for many applications,
 > >ranging from cataloging content to computer processing of text. The
 > >RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely adopted in various
 > >protocols and text formats, including HTML, XML, and CLDR, as the best
 > >means of identifying languages and language preferences. Since the
 > >publication of RFC 3066, however, several issues have faced
 > >implementors of language tags:
 > >
 > >* Stability and accessibility of the underlying ISO standards
 > >* Difficulty with registrations and their acceptance
 > >* Lack of clear guidance on how to identify script and region where
 > >necessary
 > >* Lack of parseability and the ability to verify well-formedness.
 > >* Lack of specified algorithms, apart from pure prefix matching,
 > >for operations on language tags.
 > >
 > >This working group will address these issues by developing two
 > >documents. The first is a successor to RFC 3066. It will describe the
 > >structure of the IANA registry and how the registered tags will relate
 > >to the generative mechanisms (originally described in RFC 3066, but
 > >likely to be updated by the document). In order to be complete, it
 > >will need to address each of the challenges set out above:
 > >
 > >- For stability, it is expected that the document will describe how
 > >the meaning of language tags remains stable, even if underlying
 > >references should change, and how the structure is to remain stable in
 > >the future. For accessibility, it is to provide a mechanism for easily
 > >determining whether a particular subtag is valid as of a given date,
 > >without onerous reconstruction of the state of the underlying standard
 > >as of that time.
 > >
 > >- For extensibility, it is expected that the document will describe
 > >how generative mechanisms could use ISO 15924 and UN M.49 codes
 > >without explicit registration of all combinations. The
 > >current registry contains pairs like uz-Cyrl/uz-Latn and
 > >sr-Cyrl/sr-Latn, but RFC 3066 contains no general mechanism or
 > >guidance for how scripts should be incorporated into language tags;
 > >this replacement document is expected to provide such a mechanism.
 > >
 > >- It is also expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution
 > >of the underlying ISO standards, in particular ISO 639-3, mechanisms
 > >support variant registration and formal extensions, as well as
 > >allowing generative private use when necessary.
 > >
 > >- It is expected to specify a mechanism for easily identifying the
 > >of each subtag in the language tag, so that, for example, whenever a
 > >script code or country code is present in the tag it can be extracted,
 > >even without access to a current version of the registry. Such a
 > >mechanism would clearly distinguish between well-formed and valid
 > >language tags, to allow for maximal compatibility between
 > >implementations released at different times, and thus using different
 > >versions of the registry.
 > >
 > >The second document will describe matching algorithms for use with
 > >language tags. Language tags are used in a broad variety of contexts
 > >and it is not expected that any single matching algorithm will fit all
 > >needs. Developing a small set of common matching algorithms does seem
 > >likely to contribute to interoperability, however, as it seems likely
 > >that using protocols could reference these well-known algorithms in
 > >their specifications.
 > >
 > >This working group will not take over the existing review function of
 > >the ietf-languages list. The ietf-languages list will continue to
 > >review tags according to RFC 3066 until the first document produced by
 > >the WG is approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC. Then it will
 > >review according to whatever procedures the first document specifies.
 > >
 > >Goals and Milestones:
 > >Mar 05    Sumbit first working group draft of registry-structure draft
 > >Apr 05    Submit first draft of matching algorithms draft
 > >May 05    Submit first draft of matching algorithms draft
 > >Aug 05    Submit matching algorithms draft for IETF Last Call
 >Ietf-languages mailing list
 >Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
 >        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
 >To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit
 >Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
 >sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
 >the views of Reuters Ltd. 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list