Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Internationalization Terminlogy

From: "J-F C. Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 01:27:18 +0200

John,
Good work. I have just searched the text for some words. I note that:

- "globalization" is missing which is embarassing as Unicode uses to 
say (if I am correct) globalization = internationalization  + 
localization + language tagging.
- "langtag" term is missing, so is their IANA table (largest by far 
IANA file). RFC 5646 is named. RFC 4647 is  quoted, but not 
explained, so  "language filtering" is not alluded to.
- "linguistic diversity" is missing. Not an IETF word but the IETF 
targets its support?
- "majuscules" are named, but uncorrectly explained: in latin 
languages, at least, an upper case may be a majuscule, but a 
majuscule may not be printed as an upper case, or stays a majuscule 
even if incorrectly printed as a lower case.
- "plurilingual" is not quoted which is different from multilingual?
- "linguistic independance" is not alluded to - ex. using digital codes.
- "orthotypograpy" is missing in IETF

jfc

At 18:28 15/05/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>Hi.
>
>If you have any significant interest in internationalization,
>and particular terminology used about it in the IETF, please
>have a look at draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3435bis-00.   Paul and I
>have several editorial and fine-tuning comments queued up, but
>are looking for more comments before we submit another draft and
>ask the Apps Area WG Chairs to generate a Last Call within that
>WG.  In other words, your last and best opportunity to submit
>effective comments is now.
>
>We are particularly interested in comments about what has been
>left out that is relevant and important.  Comments about
>definitions we have gotten wrong are also important.
>
>FWIW, we are determined to keep focus on what the title
>suggests: internationalization terminology used in the IETF (and
>in IETF protocol work in particular).  Unless there is strong
>demand in the community to change goals, we do not want to
>expand this document into a general discussion of either
>i18n/l10n issues that includes ones that the IETF has not
>addressed and is never likely to address, nor a discussion of
>character set terminology that has not been needed for IETF
>work, etc.
>
>Note for EAI participants: It is my hope that EAI documents will
>be consistent with these definitions and will, where
>appropriate, reference this document rather than inventing
>definitions of their own.
>
>Note for IDNABIS participants: Note that this document does not
>alter, or even repeat, any IDNA terminology.  IDNA-specific
>terms are simply listed and cross-referenced to RFC 5890.
>
>Substantive comments to [email-masked] please; editorial
>ones to Paul and myself.
>
>thanks,
>    john
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:59:30 -0400

--On Monday, May 16, 2011 01:27 +0200 "J-F C. Morfin"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> Good work. I have just searched the text for some words.

Thanks.  And thanks for the review.  Some of the omissions that
you note below are deliberate, so let me comment on those at
least.

> I note that:
> 
> - "globalization" is missing which is embarrassing as Unicode
> uses to say (if I am correct) globalization =
> internationalization  + localization + language tagging.

As we have explained to others (mostly off-list), our criterion,
as indicated by the title, is terms used, and found useful, in
the IETF.  The definition or use of a term in Unicode (or
elsewhere) does not justify inclusion.  When we've concluded
that a term should be included, we have tried to either make our
definition consistent with the definition elsewhere (often by
copying) or we have tried to comment on the differences between
IETF usage and usage elsewhere along with any issues those
differences raise.

As I am sure you know, "globalization" is used heavily in
international political and economic contexts with meanings
quite different from the one you describe above.  Inconsistent
definitions of a term are probably a good reason to avoid
recommending it.  The term is not, as far as I know, used
significantly in the IETF.  And, as far as I can tell after a
quick inspection, Unicode does not, in fact, define it (it at
least doesn't appear in their index, which I've found to be
pretty good).  Any of "no use in the IETF", "ambiguity of
meaning", and "no strong requirement in the IETF" would be
grounds for excluding it; all three seem to apply in this case.

> - "langtag" term is missing, so is their IANA table (largest
> by far IANA file). RFC 5646 is named. RFC 4647 is  quoted, but
> not explained, so  "language filtering" is not alluded to.

I've done a quick search, and I don't see "langtag" as a common
term in the IETF.  "Language tag" is usually spelled out
instead.  As with our decision to send readers directly to RFC
5890 for IDNA terminology, I think that anyone who really needs
to understand the terminology for language tagging and
associated issues and actions is better off looking at the
relevant documents (which are referenced for a reason).  If you
have suggested text for clarifying that, or a good selection of
counterexamples in which "langtag" is used in IETF documents,
please send them along. 

> - "linguistic diversity" is missing. Not an IETF word but the
> IETF targets its support?

It seems to me that this is a term about which many people have
good (but not necessarily consistent) intuitions but for which
there is no generally-accepted definition that would stand any
sort of precise test.  How would you recommend defining it using
plain English?  

> majuscule may not be printed as an upper case, or stays a
> majuscule even if incorrectly printed as a lower case.

The definition given is attributed to Unicode and accurately
copied.  It is certainly a correct definition in a typography
context and probably a correct one in character set coding or
internationalization ones.  It seems to me that what you are
after is a definition appropriate to some localization contexts.
That has, so far, been out of the scope of this document
(although certainly within scope of some of your other work).
I'd rather keep it out of scope for this document, if only
because I think the definition you propose would be very
controversial, even for Latin-based writing systems in general.

> - "linguistic independence" is not alluded to - ex. using
> digital codes.

As far as I know, neither of those two terms have been used in
any IETF document or discussion except by you and your group(s).

   best,
    john