ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko

[Addison Phillips]

+1

That is what the registration process is for. Anyone may request additional
description fields (or changes to/removal of existing ones). A consensus
will emerge and then we can decide if any other retroactive actions need
take place.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk] 
> Sent: 2006?6?8? 12:03
> To: 'Doug Ewell'; ietf-languages at iana.org
> Cc: 'Michael Everson'; 'Richard Ishida'; 'Addison Phillips'
> Subject: RE: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko
> 
> My two penn'orth...
> 
> Doug wrote:
> 
> > We should focus here on Richard's suggestion to have two 
> > Descriptions, one with the straight apostrophe and one with 
> > the curly one.  I don't agree and apparently Michael doesn't 
> > either.  Do we need to restart the two-week review period?
> 
> I think consensus was reached for the initial proposal and I 
> don't think,
> given the current debate, it would be wise to restart the 
> two-week review
> period. I think the issue raised by Richard is completely 
> separate to the
> registration request as it may have a bearing on other 
> records currently
> held within the registry.  At the moment there seems to be too many
> variables being discussed for consensus to be achieved on that.
> 
> > Apparently there is no debate on the Suppress-Script field for N'Ko.
> 
> Agreed.  My current take on this is that there is no 
> disagreement with the
> proposal for N'Ko but rather a discussion as to whether to 
> add an additional
> description.  
> 
> IMHO, there are two possible courses of action:
> 
> Option 1.  Accept the proposal Doug has made (time is up - it 
> is ready to
> go) and ask Richard to make a formal request for an 
> additional Description.
> This can then be discussed in the appropriate 
> manner/timescale and a course
> of action agreed. 
> 
> Option 2.  Reject the proposal as made by Doug, revise and submit with
> additional Description as proposed by Richard.
> 
> I'm giving a +1 to Option 1.  I don't think there is any harm 
> in doing this
> in two stages.
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Debbie Garside
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of 
> Doug Ewell
> > Sent: 08 June 2006 15:11
> > To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> > Cc: Michael Everson
> > Subject: Re: ISO 639 - New item approved - N'Ko
> > 
> > Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> > 
> > >> Choosing between a plain ASCII apostrophe and a more 
> > typographically 
> > >> accurate, curly apostrophe does not seem to me to constitute 
> > >> "alternative names" in the same sense.
> > >
> > > So much so that I wonder why this is an issue. I mean 
> > really. Why is 
> > > this an issue?
> > 
> > I think it would be inappropriate and silly to use one type 
> > of apostrophe for the script N'Ko and another for the 
> > language N'Ko.  To me they are not "alternative names," but 
> > they create a completely arbitrary difference.  Searching 
> > would not necessarily work as expected, for instance.
> > 
> > >> We even went so far as to use the "acute accent" 
> > character, U+00B4, 
> > >> in the name "Gwich´in" because that is what ISO 639 used.
> > >
> > > You did WHAT? Oh, this is too depressing. The Gwich'in 
> > language uses a 
> > > glottal stop, which could be represented by U+0027 
> APOSTROPHE or by
> > > U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, although the 
> > **correct** character
> > > to use is U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE (see 
> > > http://www.languagegeek.com/dene/gwichin/gwichin.html). If 
> > ISO 639 is 
> > > using U+00B4 ACUTE ACCENT this is some sort of bizarre 
> > fallback, and 
> > > it is **not** what we should be using. We should use the correct 
> > > character (as we do in ISO 15924), and if ISO 639 is using 
> > the wrong 
> > > one, we should help them to correct it.
> > 
> > I found the thread in LTRU, from the 2005-04-24 time frame.  
> > I had originally flattened all the apostrophes to U+0027 
> > (also for Ge'ez and N'Ko), then Frank Ellermann suggested 
> > leaving them as the ISO standards had them instead of 
> > "second-guessing" ISO, and nobody else weighed in pro or con, 
> > so I put them back.  I did object that "U+00B4 is not even an 
> > apostrophe," but ultimately I considered my role to be one of 
> > editing the initial registry draft, reflecting the will of 
> > the list, not imposing my preferences if list consensus did 
> > not seem to support them.
> > 
> > > It is the codes (Nkoo, nqo) that are normative, not the 
> > descriptions.
> > 
> > The choice was between being (or appearing to be) arbitrary 
> > on our own, or accepting the arbitrariness of others.  We had 
> > recently taken a good deal of criticism for not justifying 
> > some of the decisions we'd made.
> > 
> > > Gwich'in should be changed to Gwich&#x02BC;in, surely.
> > 
> > Then this should be discussed here.  Please, list members, if 
> > you have a view on this, speak up within the next two weeks.
> > 
> > > APOSTROPHE and RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK are a well-known 
> > > typographical pairing and I don't suppose we need to have both.
> > 
> > Indeed, my original motivation was to avoid "having both" for 
> > N'Ko, one for the script and the other for the language.
> > 
> > We should focus here on Richard's suggestion to have two 
> > Descriptions, one with the straight apostrophe and one with 
> > the curly one.  I don't agree and apparently Michael doesn't 
> > either.  Do we need to restart the two-week review period?
> > 
> > We can always revisit any or all of the Description fields at 
> > any time.
> > 
> > Apparently there is no debate on the Suppress-Script field for N'Ko.
> > 
> > --
> > Doug Ewell
> > Fullerton, California, USA
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>