Comments is fine; and if in a comment, then it might as well be the longer form.<div><br></div><div>> But a great many languages have names (including ISO 639...</div><div><br></div><div>And we should add comments to that where we find them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We can't be defensive about this. If people are confused, it's best not to just respond by saying that they should have researched the issue (although a lot of programmers take that point of view with UI design!!). It is best to help to reduce the confusion, and we have tools to do that.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Your proposed record looks good. (And no need to call it "submitted somewhat defensively" - it looks well done.)</div><div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 07:11, Doug Ewell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Mark Davis ☕ wrote:<br>
<br>
> The main goal of the Description is not to completely describe the<br>
> language tag; instead, it is to distinguish it from other tags with<br>
> which it could be confused.<br>
<br>
</div>Of course. But a great many languages have names (including ISO 639<br>
names and Description fields) which could potentially be confused with<br>
others.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> So given that it is a quite natural mistake to think that the term<br>
> "Pinyin" means what 99% of those knowing the word think it means<br>
> (applying to over a billion people), rather than the minute fraction<br>
> of a percent who would realize that it means something quite different<br>
> (applying to 27K people), we owe it to readers to be quite clear about<br>
> this.<br>
<br>
</div>I don't dispute that, but I also think most users of the Registry (and<br>
for that matter ISO 639), when they see an entry that puzzles them,<br>
might find out from a neutral standpoint what it means, rather than<br>
assuming the standards organization is clueless. The RA really does<br>
understand that a transcription scheme is not a language.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> What you suggest is probably adequate, but we might go so far as:<br>
><br>
> Pinyin (a Niger-Congo language spoken in Cameroon)<br>
<br>
</div>Just to be clear for all, you support putting this information in the<br>
Description, while I support putting it in a Comments field.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | <a href="http://www.ewellic.org" target="_blank">http://www.ewellic.org</a><br>
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ <a href="http://is.gd/2kf0s" target="_blank">http://is.gd/2kf0s</a> <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>