gc-ao1990 request - Galician Wikipedia

Luc Pardon lucp at skopos.be
Sat May 23 17:37:06 CEST 2015

On 22-05-15 17:34, Michael Everson wrote:
> Please feel free to write to the editors of the Novas de Galicia, explain your request, and see what they have to say.

   I'd like to have a few things cleared up first.

  One: I don't mind having a debate, but I _do_ mind talking to a brick
wall. So if you are determined to block this request no matter what,
please say so, and then we can all stop wasting our time.

  Two: if you are honestly willing to consider approving it, please tell
me exactly what the editors of the NdG would have to say in order to
overcome your current reluctance.

  You know that they are publishing Galician in AO1990 since 2011, you
know that the proper tag for that is "gl-ao1990", what else do you want
to know?

> Otherwise it seems to me that you are arguing in the abstract (not about your actual need to tag data), and crystal-ball gazing. 

  When did you ask the requester of "oxendict" to prove that he had an
"actual need to tag data"?

  When did you ask for proof that the old "en-GB-oed" tag (the one that
"oxendict" was to replace, remember) was in actual use somewhere, anywhere?

  Can you remind me what "actual need to tag data" was relieved by
replacing the old tag? From what I recall [1], it was more like "arguing
in the abstract" that grandfathers really should retire.

  Can you remind us how and when you showed us an "actual need to tag
data" with "en-IE-oxendict"? I seem to remember that we first wanted
"Prefix: en-GB", but you said "hey, I'm in Ireland and I use it too".
Did you ever supply evidence for such use?

   The application for the old "en-GB-oed" [2] was justified as follows
(my emphasis): "The tag en-GB-oed _can_ be used to mark text which, for
instance, should be spell-checked against an Oxford-specific spelling
dictionary, rather than a generic "British" one". Now that looks every
inch like "arguing in the abstract" and "crystal-ball gazing" to me. Can
you help me understand why it is not?

   To summarize: please explain why I'm mistaken in concluding that you
are applying different standards to similar things. Failing that, please
explain why tags for Portuguese orthographies should meet much higher
criteria than tags for English ones - and tell me where in BCP47 it is
written that it must be so.

  And by the way, it would help if you could tell me where in BCP47 it
says that a request MUST be rejected unless the applicant can show "an
actual need to tag data", i.e. where it says that "crystal-ball gazing"
(as you call it) is forbidden.

> Aside: Shall we encode subtags for EVERY proposal for English spelling reform? 

   For proposals: probably not. For accepted proposals: yes, of course.

   How do you expect a spell checker to know which rule set to enforce
if there is no proper subtag? That was precisely why you wanted
"en-GB-oed", remember?

> Why not go off and implement ao1990 and come back when actual problems are found?

  This sentence is utterly incomprehensible to me. What do you mean by
"implementing an orthography"? What kind of "actual problems" can one
find when "implementing" an orthography? And how can this list help
fixing them?

  Unless you help me understanding what you mean, you cannot expect me
to understand why I should "go off".

   Luc Pardon

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/10372
[2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/en-GB-oed

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list