[YES] The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066 (or its successors) and its consuming protocols

Clay Compton clayco at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 4 23:16:45 CEST 2004


Comments:

What can I say; maybe I just enjoy being contrary.  However, I think adding *parts* of the Linguasphere proposal the RFC 3066 can be beneficial.  For one thing, it would cut back on the number of custom tags requested in this forum, which most RFC 3066 implementers don't seem to notice, anyway.
My continued support depends on how RFC 3066 gets extended to support the LS 639 tags.  Clearly, "ineu" (Indo-European) is not a language and should never be used for tagging content.  By the same token, neither is "prsl" (Preseli Welsh).  However, "cy-cyde-prsl" is a perfectly valid tag in RFC 3066 today, it accurately reflects that the tagged language variety is related to Welsh (which makes it more aesthetically satisfying), and legacy systems that parse the subtags in the tag (which they shouldn't do, but do anyway) would correctly fall back to "cy".  If the implications of the proposal for RFC 3066 are to allow subtags based on the language varieties and communities in the LS Register, this is an occasion for wild celebration.  Of course, I'd like to hear the Linguasphere folks pledge that they'll avoid any tag name collisions with ISO 15924. 
It's true that there would be a lot of tags in LS 639, but I'm not complaining.  I think they (we) can handle the change as long as RFC 3066's hypothetical successor has an "LS639-tags-as-subtags-for-language-varieties-only" rule that generates tags like the one I suggest above.

Clay Compton

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Misha Wolf
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:24 PM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: [YES/NO] The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066 (or its successors) and its consuming protocols

Ooops.  This version is better :-)

Misha


-----Original Message-----
From: Misha Wolf
Sent: 04 June 2004 20:22
To: 'ietf-languages at iana.org'
Subject: The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066 (or its
successors) and its consuming protocols -- [YES/NO]


I'd like to carry out an experiment and hope the list moderator
doesn't object.  This is based on a system Michael Sperberg-McQueen
used with the W3C XML Schema WG.  The WG had a vast number of
members and lots of decisions to make.  Sometimes email ballots
were used, with the question and the vote both placed in the
Subject line for automated processing.  I seem to recall that the
idea was that there was no need to read the mail itself, as the
only relevant information was in the Subject line.

If you agree with this experiment and have an opinion, please reply
to this mail, deleting either the "YES" or the "NO" from the Subject
line.

If you agree with this experiment and do not have an opinion, please
skip to the next mail in your Inbox.

If you do not agree with this experiment and want to write a mail
saying that it is a load of nonsense, please leave both the "YES"
and the "NO" in place.

Thanks

Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Product and Platform Architecture Group
Reuters Limited


-----Original Message-----
From: Misha Wolf
Sent: 04 June 2004 19:47
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: Linguasphere -- An appeal for clarity


Can we have a straw poll re Q2 ...?

   Does anyone here consider the Linguasphere stuff to be suited
   to RFC 3066* and its consuming protocols?

* or its successors

Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Product and Platform Architecture Group
Reuters Limited


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter
Constable
Sent: 04 June 2004 19:41
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: Linguasphere -- An appeal for clarity


> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Misha Wolf


> Please can we keep separate the discussions...

[in a subsequent message]

> Reading the various mails, I feel that people are
> arguing at cross-purposes.

Debbie has made comments on this list suggesting positive answers for
both questions. As I'm concerned about what happens re Q2 but also about
how this community perceives what's happening in the ISO arena (Q1 --
e.g. Harald's response to DG's message expressing concern by *too much*
activity related to ISO 639), I felt it was appropriate to put both
issues into appropriate context.

Re Q1, I have said that, at this time, the project Debbie is referring
to is not an ISO project, and that needs analysis has not been provided.

Re Q2, I have said that needs analysis has not been provided, and that I
am inclined to think a huge codeset at the level of granularity proposed
would not be a good thing for a successor of RFC 3066 and its consuming
protocols.


Peter

Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


--------------------------------------------------------------- -
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list