<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ltru@ietf.org">ltru@ietf.org</a>
list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got a chance to
review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a look at the
ltru archive
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html"><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html></a>
and send any comments to the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:ltru@ietf.org">ltru@ietf.org</a> list since that's where
discussion
seems to be taking place.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
pr<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>[Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:00:47 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Mark Davis ☕ <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com"><mark@macchiato.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Martin J. Dürst <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp"><duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td>LTRU Working Group <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ltru@ietf.org"><ltru@ietf.org></a>, <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:court@infiauto.com"><court@infiauto.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
A new draft posted at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01</a><br
clear="all">
<div>
<div
style="margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"><span
style="font-family: 'times new roman',serif; font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"><span
style="font-family: 'times new roman',serif; font-size: small;">Martin,
we
tried
to address your concerns; please take a look and let us know
what you think.</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"><span
style="font-family: 'times new roman',serif; font-size: small;"><br>
</span></div>
<div
style="margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"><span
style="font-family: 'times new roman',serif; font-size: small;">Mark</span></div>
<i>— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —</i><br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:00, Mark Davis ☕ <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Those
are
good
issues; thanks for raising them and starting the discussion.
Comments below.<br clear="all">
<div
style="margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; font-family: Times; font-size: medium;"><br>
<hr><span
style="font-family: 'times new roman',serif; font-size: small;">Mark</span></div>
<div class="im"><i>— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —</i></div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:39, "Martin J. Dürst" <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hello
Mark,
others,<br>
<br>
Overall comment:<br>
The idea to reuse language tags to indicate
transliteration/transcription source, and to add some additional tags
to distinguish methods seems to be reasonable and sound.<br>
<br>
The description of the structure of the allowed subtags and of the
responsibility split between IETF (this draft) and UTC (UTS 35) looks
quite messy to me, and should be cleaned up. I'd personally prefer that
UTS 35 (or whatever else on the Unicode side) only define the
<mechanism> part (after the m0 subtag).<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>That would be my preference as well (can't speak for my
coauthors).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We patterned it this way following what ended up being accepted
for the -u- extension. That is, the spec is in UTS35, but there is a
summary here. But of course, there are many ways to do it. And maybe
this summary is too detailed, at least for the mechanism part, and we
could just have it in UTS35.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We considered a number of alternatives:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>We could define everything after -t- to be the source language,
and everything after -m- to be the mechanism. But that burns 2
extension letters, just one.</li>
<li>We also considered having everything in the -u extension, for
which we already have the structure set up. However, that would force
us to have artificial source subtags like 'en0' instead of 'en',
because the -u- extension wouldn't allow the 2-letter subtags (it
already defines a use for them).</li>
<li>We could also have -t- be just the source, and define the
mechanism in -u-, also easy. But we felt it would be better to have
everything under one extension.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="im">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
<br>
Detailled comments:<br>
<br>
"In addition, it may also be important to<br>
specify a particular specification for the transformation.": Too much
'spec' in one sentence.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>ok</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
"For example, if one is transcribing the names of Italian or Russian<br>
cities on a map for Japanese users, each name will need to be<br>
transliterated into katakana using rules appropriate for the source<br>
language and target languages.": "source languages and target
language"?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>yes</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
BCP47 required information: The first three paragraphs should move to
the introduction.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Other authors, what do you think?</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
"followed by a sequence of subtags that would form a language tag":
Here and in general: Don't use 'would'.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Grammatically, it is that the sequence of subtags *would* form a
language subtag if they *were* separated out. They are not actually a
language tag, because they occur in the middle of another language
subtag. How would you like that to be phrased?</div>
<div class="im">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
>>>><br>
The structure of 't' subtags is determined by the Unicode CLDR<br>
Technical Committee, in accordance with the policies and procedures<br>
in <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html"
target="_blank">http://www.unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html</a>,
and
subject<br>
to the Unicode Consortium Policies on<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html" target="_blank">http://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html</a>.<br>
>>>><br>
<br>
<br>
The following paragraph is also difficult to understand. I wouldn't
know exactly what falls on what side. I think one major reason is that
we are treading new ground here, it's the first time we have a
singleton definition that allows reuse of language tags (with a few
restrictions) as well as intends to define its own extensions.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>These were both patterned after what was used for the -u-
extension. We can take a look at them to try to clarify.</div>
<div class="im">
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
>>>><br>
Changes that can be made by successive versions of LDML [UTS35] by<br>
the Unicode Consortium without requiring a new RFC include the<br>
allocation of new subtags for use after the 't' extension. A new RFC<br>
would be required for material changes to an existing 't' subtag, or<br>
an incompatible change to the overall syntactic structure of the 't'<br>
extension; however, such a change would be contrary to the policies<br>
of the Unicode Consortium, and thus is not anticipated.<br>
>>>><br>
<br>
2.1 Summary: There seems to be quite some overlap between the part of
section 2 before the 2.1 heading.<br>
<br>
<br>
One question I would have as a linguistic researcher is: How much
effort and time is involved in getting a 'mechanism' approved? If such
'mechanisms' are e.g. rejected with arguments like "if we accept it,
then everybody has to implement it" or so, then I would see that as a
problem.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Good point. I'll propose some text.</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
So much for the moment.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards, Martin.
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2011/06/18 6:07, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Yoshito,
Addison,
and I had had an action for a while now from the CLDR<br>
committee to submit a draft for a an extension. Rather than go through
all<br>
the problems in the falk draft, we put together an alternative approach,<br>
leveraging the work we already did for the -u- extension.<br>
<br>
It just got posted at<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00"
target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00</a><br>
<br>
Courtney, I think this provides a superset of the functionality that
you are<br>
interested in. Perhaps you can read it over, and we can add you as an
author<br>
of the next version of this draft instead of having the two competing<br>
proposals.<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:50, Randy Presuhn<br>
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com"
target="_blank">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>>wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi
-<br>
<br>
I started out with an off-list response, but I figure this is<br>
something worth sending to the list.<br>
<br>
Off-list, a contributor asked:<br>
<br>
...<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I'd
love
to see your input. I'd like to make sure I understand<br>
all the concerns. Is there any way you could forward this to the list?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
My response:<br>
<br>
Sorry, already deleted. As I recall, the main concerns were<br>
<br>
(1) there already *is* support for identifying orthographies<br>
(remember German?)<br>
(2) the I-D seems to assume that transliterations always result<br>
in "Latin" (previous discussion on LTRU included transliterations<br>
to Cyrillic and Hangul, among others)<br>
(3) the "original orthography" is irrelevant for the transliteration<br>
systems I've been able to think of. (At the same time, some<br>
transliteration systems are quite "lossy" and some don't do<br>
"round trip" very well.) Consider also the transliteration of<br>
material<br>
which was originally in audio form...<br>
(4) The draft doesn't clearly distinguish "orthography" from<br>
"transliteration".<br>
This may be because the boundary between the two can be fuzzy, but<br>
even<br>
that is an issue that should be addressed.<br>
(5) How this fits in with *transcription* systems (e.g. IPA) should be<br>
addressed. The boundary gets fuzzy with orthographies that are<br>
equivalent<br>
to phonemic representations of the language. (e.g., Pinyin for<br>
Mandarin)<br>
(6) The proposed singleton usage appears broken and unnecessary.<br>
<br>
Or something like that. I may have forgotten something here, or, in the<br>
process of reconstruction, thought of something I missed the first time.<br>
<br>
Randy<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>