William Overington WOverington at ngo.globalnet.co.uk
Mon Jun 16 13:00:32 CEST 2003

Peter Constable wrote as follows.

>William Overington wrote on 06/15/2003 05:02:34 AM:


>> I think that en-INT-oed would be nice.  I would like to mention that it
would be helpful if the definition extended not only to the Oxford English
Dictionary itself but also to works published by the Oxford University Press
in relation to typography as well, such as Hart's guide for compositors and
also the book on the setting of mathematics and any other similar books from
the Oxford University Press.

>We've been talking about having the tags provided by RFC 3066 being used
>to distinguish scripts/orthographies and spelling conventions for a
>language, but the tags are not used to define typographic conventions. For
>instance, a tag en-oed should not IMO dictate whether or not an em dash
>should be surrounded by a space, whether sentences are separated by one
>space or two, whether a space is written between initials (D.C. or D. C.),

Well you may well be right there.  I was thinking back to the way in which
Horace Hart suggests that dates be expressed, indeed reproducing a letter
about it from someone, which, as I remember it, contained the suggestion
that one uses day month year in that order as a month contains days and a
year contains months, so one proceeds from unit to container to container.
Also Horace Hart mentioned wynn and yogh and the -ize endings in appropriate
cases, though not for every word.  I don't remember any examples provided by
Horace Hart, but I seem to remember that a word such as enterprise should
not have an -ize ending.  I remember reading years ago in the book about
setting mathematics that when an equation is included within a sentence that
the sentence should be finished properly and I have always subsequently
tried to do that in my writing when I use equations.  So, maybe a discussion
of whether the tag should imply a full Oxford University Press style (as far
as possible within the limits of the technology) would be appropriate.  I
feel that it would be good if it did, yet recognise (I think that -ise is
correct OED for recognise though I am not sure on the matter) that that
might not be what other people think is best.  However, I think that it is a
matter worth discussing as having the en-GB-oxford tag would provide the
opportunity for a total quality approach to computerized printing to the
Oxford University Press standards.  However, I am quite prepared to accept
that I may have got the purposes for which the tag can be applied wrong and
that perhaps the tag cannot or should not be used for such a purpose.

>> Michael Everson was the initiator of the suggestion for en-GB-oxford and
so I feel that it is only correct that, should there be a general agreement
for en-INT-oed to become the registered tag, Michael be asked for his
opinion on the matter before his suggestion is changed.

>Of course he will give his opinion. He's the language tag reviewer.

Certainly Michael is the language tag reviewer, yet I was suggesting that
Michael be asked for his opinion in the capacity of being the person who
initiated the suggestion, as it would be correct and polite to do so before
changing the suggestion which is being considered.  I would have made that
suggestion of the person who initiated the suggestion being asked his or her
opinion whoever had initiated the suggestion.  I was not referring in my
sentence to Michael being asked for his opinion due to the exercise of the
duties of his position as the language tag reviewer.  That is like the
concept of a "Corporation Sole".

>> However, if Michael were to agree that the motion should be changed to
become for en-INT-oed to be registered, then that motion would be something
for which I would vote.

>There has been no motion, and there will be no voting. That's not how it
works. There is discussion, then after two weeks Michael makes a decision.

If you will kindly look through the posts in this thread, it was not me who
initiated the concept of votes being counted!

However, there is the practical situation of the fact that the person who
put forward the suggestion is also the person who is the language tag
reviewer.  I felt that it might be easier for Michael to review a suggestion
which he had himself made if there were a specific positive vote in favour
of the suggestion from other people on the list.  Hopefully, having a
specific tag en-GB-oxford or some other tag for the desired purpose will be
a consensus decision, yet in the event of a lack of consensus or even
controversy, such voting could possibly become an important factor.

William Overington

16 June 2003

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list