Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:38:49 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Also, if my memory serves me correct, the responsibility for
> maintaining extension data was designed for private extensions not
> this type of extension where there is a more public use.

If you mean the 'x' singleton, as in "en-x-whatever", there are no
procedures.  You just make up the subtags and use them, and if you want
anyone else to understand them, you distribute a private agreement. 
These subtags don't have to be stabled, versioned, or freely available. 
They do have to be syntactically valid (e.g. 2*8alphanum), but that's
about it.

I just noticed that RFC 5646, Section 2.2.6 ("Extension Subtags"), item
3 says, "Note that there might not be a registry of these subtags."  I
missed this until now and wonder how it fits with Section 3.7, which
requires the extension RFC to specify the "URL location of the
registry."  Obviously that doesn't mean the IANA Language Tag Extensions
Registry; there would be no point in repeating that in every extension
RFC.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:52:37 +0100

Thanks Doug

Yes that's what I was thinking of.

(Being lazy here) Does BCP47 reference the -u extension RFC?

If not things seem to be getting very messy with subtag rules potentially in a number of RFCs.

Just as an aside, ISO are actually merging all of the ISO 639 standards into one workable document.  It will be known as ISO 639 and will replace all the other standards.  I am the new Editor (appointed in Korea in June).

I must say I am more for merging procedures rather than splitting.  Quite funny as when it comes to languages I am for splitting rather than clumping :-)

Best

Debbie

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:05:24 -0400

> (Being lazy here) Does BCP47 reference the -u extension RFC?

No, it doesn't.  It provides for the existence of a
registry of extension subtags, which IANA maintains at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tag-extensions-registry .

> potentially in a number of RFCs.

Inevitably so.  BCP 47 is based on the primary-language, region, script,
variant model of language tagging, but it was foreseen that other models
might need to be incorporated into it.  BCP points to the extension
registry, which points to the RFCs documenting those extensions.  It
also explains how to strip the extensions if you don't want them.

> Just as an aside, ISO are actually merging all of the ISO 639
> standards into one workable document.  It will be known as ISO 639 and
> will replace all the other standards.  I am the new Editor (appointed
> in Korea in June).

Congratulations.

-- 
Not to perambulate                 John Cowan <[email-masked]>
    the corridors                  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
during the hours of repose
    in the boots of ascension.       --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:32:29 +0200

> I just noticed that RFC 5646, Section 2.2.6 ("Extension Subtags"), item
3
> says, "Note that there might not be a registry of these subtags."  I

The extension subtags may be defined (by listing them) only in the RFC
defining the extension. Or, as in the current draft, refer (in part) to
*another* registry; in the case of the current draft: the IANA language
subtag registry; ok, that is a registry, but not specifically for that
extension.

Den 2011-07-07 23:00, skrev "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>:

> I can't find any indication of where within CLDR the list of allowable
values
> will be located.  Saying they're in core.zip is almost useless. 
Saying
> they're in common/bcp47 is better, but I'd still like to know
w

I agree that "URL: http://www.unicode.org/Public/cldr/latest/core.zip",
referring to a rather larger zip-file, containing *lots* of other stuff,
*unrelated* to the registry (for the "mechanisms" part) for this extension,
is highly unsatisfactory. It shouldn't be a zip-file (nor any other kind of
non-plain-text file; though a directory with plain text files would be ok),
and it should be a URL to *only* the registry for the extension.

    /Kent K

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 22:48:48 +0100

Thanks John.  That makes sense.

Best wishes

Debbie 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: 08 July 2011 20:05
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Congratulations.