Alemanic & Swiss German
dewell at adelphia.net
Wed Dec 6 06:29:04 CET 2006
Gerard Meijssen <gerardm at wiktionaryz dot org> wrote:
> From my perspective the RFC 4646 that is seemingly inevitable is
> problematic because it only addresses on how it wants to be backwards
> compatible and is willing to sacrifice the easy understanding that a
> single list would bring with a hybrid system. A hybrid system where it
> is unclear to me how they want to link it to the ISO-639-3 content
> with the argument that they are not willing to address it until the
> standard is standard. From my perspective, when the ISO-639-3 is
> finally ratified, this list of how to link needs to be there in a
> finished form. By not having it at the time of ratification, it makes
> the IANA codes less then credible. By not having a period where these
> codes can be discussed, you will not have buy in.
I need help understanding this:
1. The "backward compatibility" of RFC 4646 and 4646bis is a major
design goal. There are many systems that use RFC 3066 tags and breaking
compatibility with it, in particular by replacing 2-letter subtags such
as "nl" with the 3 letter-equivalent "nld", is a non-starter.
2. No RFC that references a draft standard or RFC can be approved and
published. The referenced standard must be an official standard. That
is one of the rules of the game. ISO 639-3 is not yet an approved,
official standard, therefore draft-4646bis is not yet eligible to become
an RFC. But we have certainly "addressed" ISO 639-3 and discussed it
and its code elements in detail. I don't see what the objection is.
3. It should be very clear, from reading draft-4646bis, how it intends
to incorporate the ISO 639-3 code elements.
> Yes, you cannot have it both ways. :( In a presentation of Google it
> was suggested that the coding of content with language codes is so
> unreliable that it is practically useless. This seems to suggest to me
> that good marketing for the codes and clear benefits for using correct
> codes is needed. To me this lack of the effectiveness of these codes
> and the lack of good marketing makes the whole argument for backwards
> compatibility increasingly weak.
Many people are not using RFC 3066 correctly, therefore we should
abandon backward compatibility and punish those who are using it
> Making nationalistic issues the primary argument for what makes a
> language ignores that many languages are spoken in many countries
> which refutes the argument that it is for the single countries
> involved to be the sole judge to decide on such languages.
Is there a commentary on RFC 4646 or RFC 4646bis here?
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages