LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Sep 4 02:21:01 CEST 2008


*In his capacity as LSTR*, Michael should be able to unilaterally decide to approve or not approve a registration request based on whether he feels issues related to the request have been adequately discuss and a consensus formed.

In relation to discussing issues related to a request and forming a consensus, Michael acts as just another voice in the discussion, not as LSTR, and his opinion should carry no more or less weight than anybody else’s.

As you say, he may reject something based on a single *compelling* opinion, and that may happen to be his own; but IMO he must use that veto ability very carefully so as to avoid conflict of interest: if indeed he alone voices an objecting opinion against several others on the list, it would need to be compelling indeed! The issue he raises in this case is, IMO, far from compelling.


Peter


From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Peter Constable; Mark Davis; Tracey, Niall
Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

As I understand it, his is the deciding opinion. As has been stated many times, this list is not a voting booth.

In particular, Michael can decide to approve or not approve a given registration request. He (or others) may propose a modified request for his approval during the “two week discussion period”, but he can only approve or disapprove of the mooted request. He *may* decide it based on “rough consensus” (the usual IETF policy), but he *may* also reject it based on even a single compelling opinion (which may be his own opinion, so long as it is clearly expressed on the list). There is an appeals process for cases in which people feel that Michael has been capricious in approving or rejecting an item.

FWIW, I prefer having both ‘zh’ and ‘zh-Latn’ as prefix fields. I don’t see any objection to approving these items, just to the final record form.

I also note: if ‘zh’ is given as a prefix now, ‘zh-latn’ can be added later. The converse is *also* true.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:50 AM
To: Mark Davis; Tracey, Niall
Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

Mark, Michael shouldn’t be making unilateral decisions; his is only one opinion. If the majority opinion is that “zh-Latn” is better, then that’s what he should approve.


Peter

From: mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 9:52 AM
To: Tracey, Niall
Cc: Peter Constable; ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

As I said, I have no objection at all to making the prefix be zh-Latn instead of just zh; I would prefer it. It is Michael Everson who wanted "zh" instead, so perhaps you should address him on this topic.

(For my part, I think it is more important to have the subtag registered -- and not have this drag out forever -- than for the subtag's Prefix to be perfect; in practice people will use Latn as a prefix anyway.)

Mark
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Tracey, Niall <niall.tracey at logica.com<mailto:niall.tracey at logica.com>> wrote:
We all know that new tags don't gain sudden acceptance overnight. It would be one thing if there was a suppress-script for subtags -- in that case systems could update themselves automatically. As it is, that script information is in the free-text fields and requires human intervention to insert into systems, so it's going to be a while coming. In legacy systems, it may never happen.

If we issue advice saying that the text should be tagged zh-Latn-wadegile, it will be rendered correctly by all properly-written software systems.

If we tell people that zh-wadegile is enough, more of them will tag text as such and systems will attempt to render it in Hanji.

Izh-Latn-wadegile is surely the only fault-tolerant (userproof?) option.
Shouldn't we build fault-tolerance in at every level?

Níall.

________________________________
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no>] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: 03 September 2008 16:35
To: Peter Constable
Cc: ietf-languages at iana.org<mailto:ietf-languages at iana.org>

Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

While I share that opinion, there were others that objected to it. And I can live with the required prefix being only zh; I think that reasonable implementations will also include Latn anyway.

Mark
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com<mailto:petercon at microsoft.com>> wrote:
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no>] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell

> Here are the proposed new records and registration forms, for a two-week
> review period.  (Sorry, guys: RFC 4646, Section 3.7.)  Eligible to be
> added Wednesday, September 9 at 3:00 UTC, unless someone objects or
> finds a problem.
>
> ===
>
> LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
...

> Prefix: zh

IMO this should be "zh-Latn".

More generally, it has always been my opinion that variant subtags denoting a particular written form should always be prefixed by a script subtag except when Suppress-Script applies.



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


This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080903/5d259d23/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list