Comment on [Yes] The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066
(or itssuccessors) and its consuming protocols
Addison Phillips [wM]
aphillips at webmethods.com
Sat Jun 5 00:41:49 CEST 2004
Actually cy-cyde-prsl isn't valid today (except via tag registration). Although the ABNF permits it, the text of RFC3066 does not. Generative use of LS639 would require a revision to RFC 3066 or lots and lots of registrations....
You'll note that the "hypothetical" RFC 3066 successor is also well advanced and uses ISO 15924 alpha4 codes in a specific way that would prevent LS639 codes from being used in the form you suggest. The private use extension mechanism is available (so cy-x-cyde-prsl would be valid), as is the extension mechanism.
Best Regards,
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Clay Compton
> Sent: 2004年6月4日 14:17
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: [YES] The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066
> (or itssuccessors) and its consuming protocols
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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