Alemanic & Swiss German

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 7 01:15:37 CET 2006


Regarding the comments below, I have a dumb question perhaps; how much are 
search engines using the language tags?
I find that the search engines work best for me if I type a character string 
in the language I want information in to specify the information?  That is 
the search engine does not recognize language, so much as it recognizes 
character strings?  Does it ever use the tags?
I understand that the browsers recognize the old language tags and assume 
these will recognize the new ones as new browsers are made.  And voice 
browsers.  What other applications reconize/use the tags now?  What else 
will in the near future
Thanks if anyone will clarify this.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>>There is a need for a Standard that adds value; WiktionaryZ for instance 
>>is likely to get content in the bnx language. This language has no 
>>presence on the Internet yet and it is unlikely to be found by search 
>>engines. For this it is really relevant to have a proper code because this 
>>will facilitate the recognition of these rare materials. If anything, 
>>success is in the long tail where you can make easy converts. For this the 
>>ISO-639-3 though not ratified is useful and therefore it has a credibility 
>>that the RFC 4646 lacks.
>
>*sigh*
>When RFC 4646bis is published, you will be able to conform to both at once. 
>  If you check the draft Registry for RFC 4646bis (page 114), you will see 
>than "bnx" and thousands of others are included.  (Warning: this is a large 
>diocument, over 750,00 bytes.)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-00.txt


>From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
>To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>, "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: Alemanic & Swiss German
>Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:58:11 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by 
>bay0-mc4-f15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Wed, 6 
>Dec 2006 06:59:57 -0800
>Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1])by 
>eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932C72596C9;Wed,  6 Dec 2006 
>15:56:38 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost 
>(eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 
>18099-03; Wed,  6 Dec 2006 15:56:37 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1])by 
>eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E902596DA;Wed,  6 Dec 2006 
>15:56:17 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1])by 
>eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA36D2596D7for 
><ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>;Wed,  6 Dec 2006 15:56:14 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1])by localhost 
>(eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,port 10024)with ESMTP id 
>17574-10 for <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>;Wed,  6 Dec 2006 15:56:07 +0100 
>(CET)
>Received: from pechora1.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.34.36])by 
>eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924B32596C9for 
><ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>;Wed,  6 Dec 2006 15:56:06 +0100 (CET)
>Received: from mta14.adelphia.net (mta14.adelphia.net [68.168.78.137])by 
>pechora1.icann.org (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kB6ExFMr001817for 
><ietf-languages at iana.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:59:20 -0800
>Received: from DGBP7M81 ([76.167.184.182]) by mta16.adelphia.net(InterMail 
>vM.6.01.05.04 201-2131-123-105-20051025) with SMTPid 
><20061206144200.DIHO9721.mta16.adelphia.net at DGBP7M81>;Wed, 6 Dec 2006 
>09:42:00 -0500
>X-Message-Info: txF49lGdW41ZFq8KbENA9e+y7KOCkfCCzRsKYK6etwM=
>X-Original-To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>Delivered-To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.7
>References: 
><20061205161156.B43CA2596F5 at eikenes.alvestrand.no><002801c718f7$71c827c0$6501a8c0 at DGBP7M81><45769494.4060701 at wiktionaryz.org>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2293/Wed Dec 6 06:00:31 2006 
>onpechora1.icann.org
>X-Virus-Status: Clean
>X-Greylist: IP, sender and recipient auto-whitelisted, not delayed 
>bymilter-greylist-1.6 (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.34.36]);Wed, 06 Dec 2006 
>06:59:20 -0800 (PST)
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
>X-BeenThere: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, 
><mailto:ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages>
>List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
>List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>,<mailto:ietf-languages-request at alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
>Return-Path: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2006 14:59:58.0255 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[326A53F0:01C71947]
>
>Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at wiktionaryz dot org> wrote:
>
>>The Google presentation gives you a reality check; only 15% of the content 
>>is tagged and often incorrectly. This means to me that the codes are not 
>>understood / adhered to. My problem is that in the Wikimedia Foundation we 
>>do not tag our content correctly and as it is on the Internet, we need to 
>>know what the IANA language tags and I have already matched 209 out of 250 
>>WMF project codes.
>
>I have tried to explain this at least twice already:
>
>There is a revision of RFC 4646 underway that will incorporate ISO 639-3 
>code elements.  It is likely to be approved some time early in 2007.  At 
>that time you can use ISO 639-3 code elements and be conformant with the 
>IETF specification as well.
>
>There is no "conflict" between ISO 639-3 and the "IANA language tags" 
>except that the latter cannot reference a draft standard.
>
>>For WiktionaryZ we have as a first step created language portals for 
>>almost all languages that are in ISO-639-3. As a resource it is on the 
>>Internet and we do where applicable use the same conventions to indicate 
>>locales scripts etcetera. We can and want to add the other applicable 
>>codes that exist like MARC and IANA language subtags.
>
>Since you're interested in being able to tag your content conformantly, why 
>don't you join the LTRU Working Group and follow the progress of RFC 
>4646bis?
>
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>>>1.  The "backward compatibility" of RFC 4646 and 4646bis is a major 
>>>design goal.  There are many systems that use RFC 3066 tags and breaking 
>>>compatibility with it, in particular by replacing 2-letter subtags such 
>>>as "nl" with the 3 letter-equivalent "nld", is a non-starter.
>>
>>This seems to be an excellent design goal from an engineering point of 
>>view.
>
>Well, it is the Internet *Engineering* Task Force.
>
>>From a marketing point of view, I would say that it is a unmitigated 
>>disaster. With only 15% of the Internet content tagged at all and much of 
>>it wrong it looks like you are building on top on quicksand.
>
>I do not follow your line of reasoning that a marketing "disaster" implies 
>a defect in the engineering.
>
>>I have already spend a lot of time trying to understand it and the way it 
>>works seems Byzantine to me.
>
>Please ask us questions about details of how to implement RFC 4646. That is 
>likely to give you better results and less frustration than badmouthing the 
>system.
>
>>For me the goal of a new Standard should be to improve the 15% to better 
>>than 75% but this 75% being correctly used code.
>
>Ask anyone who has worked with Internet standards -- hardware or software 
>-- and they will tell you they have little or no control over whether their 
>standards are implemented correctly.  Only market forces can do that.  The 
>IETF is explicitly an engineering group, not an industry consortium or a 
>marketing advocacy group.
>
>That said, if you see any engineering flaws in RFC 4646 that you feel 
>contribute to low acceptance in the market, please state them.
>
>>This means make we need the code to be credible and relevant.
>
>How do you see RFC 4646 as not credible or not relevant?  (Other than not 
>incorporating a draft standard, that is.)
>
>>There is a need for a Standard that adds value; WiktionaryZ for instance 
>>is likely to get content in the bnx language. This language has no 
>>presence on the Internet yet and it is unlikely to be found by search 
>>engines. For this it is really relevant to have a proper code because this 
>>will facilitate the recognition of these rare materials. If anything, 
>>success is in the long tail where you can make easy converts. For this the 
>>ISO-639-3 though not ratified is useful and therefore it has a credibility 
>>that the RFC 4646 lacks.
>
>*sigh*
>When RFC 4646bis is published, you will be able to conform to both at once. 
>  If you check the draft Registry for RFC 4646bis (page 114), you will see 
>than "bnx" and thousands of others are included.  (Warning: this is a large 
>diocument, over 750,00 bytes.)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-00.txt
>
>>    * There is the obvious need for identifying languages like
>>      Bangubangu which is not met.
>
>Is this the first time you have had to wait for a specification to be 
>approved?
>
>>    * There is the need to know how the ISO-639-3 codes will relate
>>      to the IANA language tags.
>
>They will be primary language subtags, except for those ISO 639-3 codes 
>which are encompassed by an ISO 639-3 macrolanguage; those will be 
>"extended language subtags" and will follow the macrolanguage; thus 
>"qu-qxc" for Chincha Quechua.  Did that make sense?  It should if you have 
>read RFC 4646 and ISO 639-3 and understand how they work.
>
>>Having it only addressed from a technical point of view does not make it 
>>work. We need to make it easy for people to tag the correct language to 
>>their content.
>
>Tools will help with that.  Market forces will help.  We are the ones 
>designing the protocol and while some of us have also built tools, we are 
>not in charge of marketing them.
>
>You might see some familiar corporate domain names on this list, such as 
>Microsoft and Google and Yahoo!, but the people on this list who work at 
>those companies are engineers trying to solve engineering problems. Steve 
>Ballmer is not on this list.
>
>>Computers are clever, they can easily shift from one code to another.
>
>Tagged content does not automatically get retagged when a code gets 
>changed; someone has to retag it.  That is why compatibility is important.
>
>>Well, I can remember discussions where people insist zh being a language 
>>while it clearly is not from a linguistic point of view.
>
>ISO 639-3, which you hold in high regard, considers Chinese to be 
>simultaneously (a) a language and (b) an umbrella term for a group of more 
>specific languages.  That is essentially how RFC 4646bis will treat it.  If 
>you are not happy with this situation, you can use the ISO 639-3 individual 
>codes directly (or use private-use tags, or invent your own system).  But 
>you cannot continue to say it is not clear how RFC 4646bis will handle 
>this; I and others have explained it repeatedly.
>
>Please join the LTRU Working Group and continue this discussion there. This 
>list is for discussion of proposals to register new subtags, not for 
>extended debates about the merits of the RFC 4646 system.
>
>--
>Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.  Get a free 90-day trial! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list