A proposed solution for descriptions (was: Re: ISO 639 - New
itemapproved - N'Ko)
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Sun Jun 11 12:49:56 CEST 2006
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 11 June 2006 05:13
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: A proposed solution for descriptions (was: Re: ISO
> 639 - New itemapproved - N'Ko)
> Mark Crispin <mrc at CAC dot Washington dot EDU> wrote:
> > The problem is that you guys are trying to resolve
> conflicting desires
> > into a single name. Long experience tells me that this
> doesn't work,
> > and ultimately forces the registry into wretched compromises that
> > displease everybody.
> Richard Ishida <ishida at w3 dot org> wrote:
> > In the case of the actual registry, there currently is no
> N'Ko ASCII
> > text, and one would have to type N’Ko to get a
> match, knowing
> > the right code point to use, and how to represent that as
> an NCR. You
> > cannot google that by typing in N'Ko. I don't think that
> situation is
> > very helpful to the average user.
> Originally I was opposed to adding new Description values to
> solve this problem, but Mark's and Richard's arguments have
> thoroughly convinced me that this is necessary, and isn't a
> slippery slope that would lead to dozens of Description
> strings for every subtag. I stand corrected, and no, I don't
> mind being called a flip-flopper.
> I hereby propose some changes to the Description fields of 28
> existing records, based on the following issues that
> presented themselves more or less in this order.
> 1. With the addition of N'Ko the language, the Registry now
> has 14 subtag records with Description fields that include a
> non-ASCII character (and therefore a hex NCR). I propose
> that for each of these, a corresponding ASCII-only
> Description be added. Example: "N’Ko"
> will be joined by "N'Ko". This applies not only to
> apostrophes, but to all non-ASCII characters such as accented
> letters: "Volapük" will be joined by "Volapuk". This solves
> most of the problem described by Richard.
> 2. Conversely, those subtags that have a Description with an
> ASCII apostrophe should have a corresponding Description
> added with the appropriate non-ASCII directional apostrophe
> or modifier letter.
> Example: "Mi'kmaq" will be joined by "Miʼkmaq". This
> should answer the concerns of Michael and others that a
> Description in "the correct characters" be available for all subtags.
> 3. A few names (Gwich'in, Ge'ez) currently have the *wrong*
> non-ASCII apostrophe. I propose that these be changed to a
> more appropriate character, as well as adding the pure-ASCII
> equivalent. Example:
> "Gwich´in" will be deleted and two new Description fields,
> "Gwichʼin" and "Gwich'in", will be added. This also
> answers a concern raised by Michael.
> 4. Some subtags were found to have a Description with a
> second name in parentheses, which is really an alternate name
> rather than a qualifier of the first name. In the case of
> script subtag "Hano", the Description "Hanunoo
> (Hanunóo)" already does what we are trying to achieve:
> it provides ASCII and non-ASCII equivalents for the same
> name. This should be replaced by two new Description fields,
> "Hanunoo" and "Hanunóo".
> 5. Likewise for a Description like "Lepcha (Róng)", it
> doesn't make sense to repeat the "Lepcha" part simply to
> provide an ASCII and non-ASCII version of "Róng". What would
> make sense would be to split this into three Descriptions:
> "Lepcha", "Róng", and "Rong".
> 6. For that matter, any Description fields with an alternate
> name in parentheses (not a qualifier) should really be split
> into multiple Descriptions, regardless of whether non-ASCII
> characters are present.
> Example: "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" should be split into
> "Falkland Islands" and "Malvinas". This is what we did with
> language subtags, which are separated by semicolons in ISO
> 639: we converted them to multiple Description fields. What
> I propose is that we do this consistently with scripts and
> regions as well.
> Note that items 4 through 6 have no effect on Description
> fields where the parenthesized portion acts as a qualifier to
> the unparenthesized portion. For example, "Cyrillic (Old
> Church Slavonic variant)" would NOT be split into "Cyrillic"
> and "Old Church Slavonic variant" since this would make no
> sense, and would give "Cyrl" and "Cyrs" the same Description.
> 7. Finally, getting back to the apostrophe issue, it appears
> that the language Amis, represented by the grandfathered tag
> "i-ami", should not have an apostrophe at all. This was
> listed as 'Amis in the RFC 1766 registration form dating back
> to 1999, and so it was copied that way to the initial RFC
> 3066bis Registry, but apparently this was a typo or editing
> error. I propose changing this to "Amis".
> In a separate mail I will present proposed registration forms
> for all 28 subtags that are affected in one way or another by
> these issues. They are severable; each should be considered
> and discussed by the group on its own merits. We aren't
> really constrained by time on this, but we should keep the
> discussion moving so that the appropriate changes (as agreed
> by the list) can be made to the Registry.
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages