<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:472917161;
mso-list-template-ids:680320960;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:757024210;
mso-list-template-ids:-1459313620;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>While this sounds like a manageable operational principle, I fear it might lead us to create macrolanguage entries more often than would be desirable. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>IMO, macrolanguages are generally not desirable. Case in point: the messiness they can create led us to debate for months/years over Chinese, and in the end we barely arrived at a compromise that left nobody thrilled (and it remains to be see to what extent interop is less than all we might like to see).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>With that in mind, I don’t as much concern about a lack of consistently-applied principles; the principle I’d hope for is to avoid them if possible, and consider on a case-by-case basis if there is legacy that in some way prevents us from doing so.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A side note: as John has observed, it is not for us to make policy on creation of macrolanguages; the most we can do is agree on a recommendation we’d like to relate to the RAs / JAC / TC37 regarding such a policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Davis ?<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:37 PM<br><b>To:</b> Randy Presuhn<br><b>Cc:</b> ietf-languages@iana.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Criteria for languages?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I have nothing against the macrolanguage concept per se.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>What I do find very troublesome is that the application of it seems fairly ad hoc, with little clarity as to why it is used in one case (Latvian) and not in another (Swiss German).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If there were a consistent policy for it, then it could be usefully applied, and implementations could anticipate what they need to do for now and the future. I'll throw out a strawman:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>A. If <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>X is being encoded,<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>A reasonable person, based on information in the registry, could have tagged X-content as Y in the past<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>There is good evidence that a substantial amount of data has been so tagged,<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2'>and X and the standard/predominent version of Y are not mutually comprehensible (at least to the degree that say Scots English and Mississippi English are)<o:p></o:p></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal>Then Y should be made into a macrolanguage, and a new Z should be encoded to represent the standard form of Y.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>B. For matching, Y should match both X and Z. (X should match X, and Z should match Z).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>C. For lookup, Y should fetch content marked with Z. (X should fetch X, and Z should fetch Z).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Mark<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:27, Randy Presuhn <<a href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi -<br><br>> From: "John Cowan" <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>><br>> To: "Peter Constable" <<a href="mailto:petercon@microsoft.com">petercon@microsoft.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>> Cc: <<a href="mailto:ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a>>; "John Cowan" <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>><br>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:43 AM<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>> Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>...<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> > 2. 'Extlang' records SHOULD NOT be created for languages if<br>> > other languages encompassed by the macrolanguage do not<br>> > also include 'extlang' records.<br>><br>> I interpret the main clause in this sentence as applying if there are as yet<br>> no other co-encompassed languages; you and Addison interpret it as<br>> not applying in that case. Consulting my local Talmudist produced a<br>> definite maybe.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Taken by itself the quoted text would avoid the situation where some,<br>but not all, of the languages encompassed by a given macrolanguage<br>would include 'extlang' records. The sentence immediately following it<br>(not quoted) is instructive:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br> For example, if a new<br> Serbo-Croatian ('sh') language were registered, it would<br> not get an extlang record because other languages<br> encompassed, such as Serbian ('sr'), do not include one<br> in the registry.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>This leads to the question of whether such a situation could also be<br>resolved by adding extlang records for all those other languages,<br>thus satisfying the requirement.<br><br>What bothers me most about the Latvian case is that while it may<br>have the same gestalt as zh, there is a huge difference in degree.<br>As I understand it, only a need to distinguish Latvian and Latgalian<br>has been identified, and there doesn't seem to be much expectation<br>for much else to be encompassed by a Latvian macrolanguage.<br>It seems that designating Latvian as a macrolanguage is serious<br>overkill in this situation, and that all would be better served by treating<br>Latgalian as a variant. I'd love to hear from someone with first-hand<br>knowledge of these languages.<br><span style='color:#888888'><br>Randy</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>