Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)

[Debbie Garside]

Kent wrote:

> Furthermore, I don’t quite understand the remark someone made:
> “Bad move to add it just because it is an English translation.”
> (then in reference to “Ivory Coast”). For all of the 
> Description fields one has taken the purportedly English name 
> (though that isn’t true in all cases, for instance for ‘CI’) 
> from the respective source standards.

In the ISO 3166-1 standard the "English Name" is published as "CÔTE
D'IVOIRE"

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/02iso-3166-code-lists/lis
t-en1.html#af

What I have said is that the Registry should reflect exactly the format of
the entity in underlying ISO standard (insofar as this is possible).

Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14 (which I believe the registry is
currently working to) states:

"The description does not replace the content of the source standard itself.
The descriptions are not intended to be the English localized names for the
subtags. Localization or translation of language tag and subtag descriptions
is out of scope of this document. "

I would also draw people's attention to the following:

"At least one of the 'Description' fields MUST be written or transcribed
into the Latin script" (S.3.1 Para.15)

I have interpreted this to mean that (Holy apostrophes notwithstanding):

This format is correct:

-----

Type: language
Subtag: nqo
Description:  N’Ko
Description:  N'Ko
Suppress-Script: Nkoo

-----

And this (which is what was actually registered) is incorrect:

-----

Type: language
Subtag: nqo
Description:  N’Ko
Suppress-Script: Nkoo

-----


Best regards


Debbie Garside



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of 
> Kent Karlsson
> Sent: 24 June 2006 17:42
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: RE: Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)
> 
> Doug Ewell wrote:
> > I'd like to know exactly what Descriptions each list member 
> would like 
> > to see for Gwich'in.  For example, "I'd like to see one 
> with the ASCII 
> > apostrophe and one with U+02BC."  If enough people reply, 
> maybe we can 
> > identify a listwide preference after all.
> 
> Ok, I’d like to avoid the ASCII apostrophe since that is 
> NEVER the proper spelling, just a fallback spelling. I don’t 
> mind using it in emails... But I really like to avoid getting 
> that someone comes to the conclusion that “The mark functions 
> and should be processed as an apostrophe ('), not as a 
> right single quote (’).”
> (though it’s an apostrophe, it’s not THAT apostrophe).
> 
> Furthermore, I don’t quite understand the remark someone made:
> “Bad move to add it just because it is an English translation.”
> (then in reference to “Ivory Coast”). For all of the 
> Description fields one has taken the purportedly English name 
> (though that isn’t true in all cases, for instance for ‘CI’) 
> from the respective source standards. One as not picked up 
> the French name (when different), nor the indigenous name 
> (which is given for ISO language codes).
> 
> And I don’t see any good reason for not correcting it first 
> in the LS registry, and then petition for getting the 
> spelling corrected in the ISO standards.
> 
> 	/kent k
> 
> PS
> I typed, directly, all punctuation above. No cut&paste or 
> other wor­karound. (Ok, it’s not a “standard” keyboard layout 
> for this OS, but it could be.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages