What are your criteria for "whether Walliserdeutsch can be *correctly* tagged as "gsw", or whether <meta charset="utf-8">whether<br>Latgalian can *correctly* be tagged as "lav". You didn't particularly like the "reasonable person" approach, although that is in widespread use in legal matters for typical types of judgments.<div>
<br></div><div>A strict approach would be that if Latgalian is indeed a different language from (mutually incomprehensible with) Latvian, then it was incorrect to tag any Latgalian with "lav", and we just encode a new language and move on. Same for Walliserdeutsch.</div>
<meta charset="utf-8"><div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 12:00, Randy Presuhn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi -<br>
<br>
> From: "Mark Davis ☕" <<a href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>><br>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <<a href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>><br>
<div class="im">> Cc: <<a href="mailto:ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a>><br>
</div>> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:22 AM<br>
<div class="im">> Subject: Re: Criteria for languages?<br>
><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> It is the lack of a uniform policy that bothers me more than the particular<br>
> case. Anything that is Walliserdeutsch right now would be either tagged "de"<br>
> (because that was all that was available until gsw was encoded) or "gsw".<br>
> Let's take precisely your wording and apply it to that case.<br>
><br>
> If an application requires standard *Swiss German* and *Walliserdeutsch* to<br>
> be treated as distinct<br>
> languages, then clearly it would need to use the new subtag to identify<br>
> standard<br>
> Swiss German, since "gsw" would mean "any kind of *Swiss German*, including<br>
> *Walliserdeutsch*". This<br>
> is a natural consequence of our "no narrowing" rules - all of the data which<br>
> is<br>
> currently precisely and accurately tagged as *Swiss German* would remain<br>
> accurately<br>
> tagged, though most would no longer be precisely tagged. (Data for which<br>
> the<br>
> tagger was unable to make a determination whether it was *Swiss German* or *<br>
> Walliserdeutsch*<br>
> would remain precisely tagged.) The assumption is that it is better to<br>
> introduce<br>
> a (potentially lingering) imprecision in the tagging of legacy data, rather<br>
> than to<br>
> cause any once-accurate tags on legacy data to become incorrect.<br>
><br>
> If your reasoning is correct for Latvian, then it is also correct for Swiss<br>
> German! If it is not correct for Swiss German, then it is not correct for<br>
> Latvian.<br>
<br>
</div></div>It's not "my" reasoning. It's a consequence of sticking to the rules established<br>
in ltru. However, there are crucial questions underlying both cases, for which<br>
the respective answers may differ. The first group of questions is whether<br>
Latgalian can *correctly* be tagged as "lav", whether Walliserdeutsch can<br>
*correctly* be tagged as "de", and whether Walliserdeutsch can be *correctly*<br>
tagged as "gsw". The second group of questions is whether there is anything<br>
approaching a "standard" "lav", "de", or "gsw". In the last case, I'm pretty<br>
sure the answer is "no such animal".<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Randy<br>
<br>
<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><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>