gmane.ietf.languages

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

CE Whitehead — 2012-05-07T16:18:09

Hi.

Doug Ewell 
    doug at ewellic.org
       

    Sat May  5 01:46:22 CEST 2011


Agreed with Doug that this seems to be a "preferred display name."
I myself am somewhat "lukewarm" (meaning not particularly excited) about our adding this description, since I'm not sure whether it's within scope either, but I feel safest deferring to the rest of the list as to what's in scope regarding the added description.
.
Yes I agree; the other three registrations should go through regardless, in my opinion also.
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar< at >hotmail.com
 > --
"       _______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Doug Ewell — 2012-05-04T23:46:22


I think it should be obvious that neither #4 nor #5 is being attempted 
here, nor really #3 in the true sense of "comprehensive." Slovene is 
certainly "a" preferred display name for this language, so maybe #2.

Clearly the ISO 639 folks (both -2 and -3) have provided, and the 
Registry has carried over, many additional names that are sometimes just 
alternative spellings (Kuanyama and Kwanyama), sometimes regionally 
preferred names (Catalan and Valencian), and sometimes... well, I don’t 
know what value is added (Limburgan, Limburger, Limburgish). Of course 
these are ISO 639's responsibility and not strictly ours.

I won't fight hard over this one if it's going to derail Tomaž's other 
three proposals.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 

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

RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Peter Constable — 2012-05-04T20:22:36

There are various distinct issues:

1. providing enough description to make reasonably clear the intended denotation

2. providing a preferred display name (in language X, or an autoglottonym) for the language

3. providing a comprehensive set of names that might be the way a user might expect (e.g. terms that they might use to search for the language in a language picker UI)

4. providing translations of terms in 2 or 3 in various languages

5. providing an exhaustive listing of names known to ever be used for the language in linguistic documentation (for purposes of documentation, not for use in any ICT implementation)

Certain #1 is within the scope of the LSTR. It's not clear that any of the others are in scope.


Peter

________________________________________
From: ietf-languages-bounces< at >alvestrand.no [ietf-languages-bounces< at >alvestrand.no] on behalf of Doug Ewell [doug< at >ewellic.org]
Sent: April 29, 2012 5:03 PM
To: ietf-languages< at >iana.org
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FO

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-30T00:03:04


and "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126 dot com> wrote:


I worked offline with Tomaž on these registration proposals over the 
last couple of weeks, and I agreed with him that the alternate use of 
"Slovenian" and "Slovene" seemed widespread and well-defined, and not 
really something that there are a zillion of. I think this is more like 
Spanish/Castilian, Catalan/Valencian, Kirghiz/Kyrgyz, Ossetian/Ossetic, 
and a small set of others.

The English-language Wikipedia uses both terms in body text, but uses 
"Slovene language" as its main headword and redirects "Slovenian 
language" to it.

It may be that this is a job for ISO 639 and not us, but I don't agree 
that it falls into the category of "translations or transcriptions" that 
RFC 5646 is talking about. Those who worked on 5646 and 4646 will recall 
that the goal there was to avoid this kind of rabbit hole:

Description: German
Description: Deutsch
Description: Allemand
Description: Alemán
Description: Tedesco
Description: Неме́цкий
D

RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Phillips, Addison — 2012-04-29T23:14:16

It's permitted, but RFC 5646 tries hard to discourage such registrations for the reason you cite. In particular, the RFC says:

--
Attempts to provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the
   registry (which, by definition, provide no new information) are
   unlikely to be approved.
--

[Admittedly, this isn't a translation, but it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of "adding new information" necessary to disambiguate the subtag.]

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Michael Everson — 2012-04-29T15:45:48

I don't think this is within our scope. ISO 639 can add such a synonym, can they not?
I don't want to get into the business of adding such synonyms. There are a zillion of them.

On 27 Apr 2012, at 10:10, Tomaz Erjavec wrote:


Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Registrations for Slovenian

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:08:46

Hello,
in the next mails I will send 1 request for extension and 3 requests for new subtags, all for Slovenian.
The first request is for an additional name for Slovenian, "Slovene" as it is also used a lot.
The other three: I've been working on a corpus of historical Slovene lately, and found that I would need tags for orthographical variants of Slovenian used in the XIX century. And, as it seems nobody else has yet proposed these tags, I'm doing so now. 
If the forms lack some information or should be corrected, I'll be happy to do so.
All the best,

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-metelko

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:14:31

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: metelko
Description: Slovene in Metelko alphabet
Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Franc Serafin
  Metelko and used from 1825 to 1833.

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the historical Metelko
alphabet, which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by
borrowing (and modifying) letters from Cyrillic.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metelko_alphabet

Stabej, Marko. Franc Serafin Metelko in Metelčica. In (Janez Cvirn, ed.) 
Slovenska Kronika XIX. stoletja. (2001). Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-metelko" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for
transcribing and modernising such texts, e.g. for t

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-dajnko

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:12:53

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: dajnko
Description: Slovene in Dajnko alphabet
Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Peter Dajnko
  and used from 1824 to 1839 mostly in Styria (in what is now Eastern
  Slovenia).

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the historical Dajnko
alphabet, which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by new
letters.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajnko_alphabet

Stabej, Marko. Peter Dajnko in njegova Dajnčica. In (Janez Cvirn, ed.) 
Slovenska Kronika XIX. stoletja. (2001). Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-dajnko" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for
transcribing and modernising such texts, e.g. for

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: sl-bohoric

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:13:06

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: bohoric
Description: Slovene in Bohorič alphabet

Prefix: sl
Comments: The subtag represents the alphabet codified by Adam Bohorič
  in 1584 and used from the first printed Slovene book and up to the
  mid-19th century.

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag marks texts written in Slovene using the Bohorič alphabet
which is distinguished from the contemporary norm by using the long s,
digraphs, etc.

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohori%C4%8D_alphabet

Bohorič, Adam, and Branko Berčič. Arcticae Horulae. Ljubljana:
Mladinska knjiga, 1970. Print.

6. Any other relevant information:

The tag "sl-bohoric" is relevant as a possible value of the < at >xml:lang
attribute to be used by language technology applications for modernising
such texts, e.g. for text search i

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Slovene

Tomaz Erjavec — 2012-04-27T09:10:07

LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

1. Name of requester: Tomaž Erjavec

2. E-mail address of requester: tomaz.erjavec< at >ijs.si
3. Record Requested:

Type: language
Subtag: sl
Description: Slovenian
Description: Slovene
Suppress-Script: Latn

6. Any other relevant information:

The purpose of this registration is to add the Description "Slovene"
to the 'sl' language tag. "Slovenian" is used more often but "Slovene" is
also quite frequent: Google search on "Slovenian language" gives 18,6
million hits, while "Slovene language" gives 8,7.


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

FWD: New proposed T extension subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-26T18:37:57

Forwarded from the CLDR Users list, for your information.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New proposed T extension subtags
From: Rick McGowan <rick< at >unicode.org>
Date: Thu, April 26, 2012 11:40 am
To: cldr-users< at >unicode.org, unicore< at >unicode.org

BCP47 language tags can use extension T for identifying transformed 
content, or indicating requests for transformed content, as described in

rfc6497 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497 . For those interested, there

is a proposal for new Extension T fields in the following web page. 
Feedback on the proposal is welcome.

http://cldr.unicode.org/development/development-process/design-proposals/t-extension-fields

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

Fwd: New proposed T extension subtags

Mark Davis ☕ — 2012-04-26T17:53:56

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rick McGowan <rick< at >unicode.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:40
Subject: New proposed T extension subtags
To: cldr-users< at >unicode.org, unicore< at >unicode.org

BCP47 language tags can use extension T for identifying transformed
content, or indicating requests for transformed content, as described in
rfc6497 http://tools.ietf.org/html/**rfc6497<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6497>.
For those interested, there is a proposal for new Extension T fields
in
the following web page. Feedback on the proposal is welcome.

http://cldr.unicode.org/**development/development-**
process/design-proposals/t-**extension-fields<http://cldr.unicode.org/development/development-process/design-proposals/t-extension-fields>
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages< at >alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-07T22:58:25

My last comment for now, as I need to get back to work.

Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:


If you actually got an incoming language tag "en-Zinh", which would be 
pretty pointless on the part of the tagger, I would think you would want 
to display as much available information as you could. That's probably 
off-topic, though.


You are probably fine using 'invalid0'. I can offer you nothing more 
rock-solid than that.


I think you are right here.


I don't think it ever occurred to anyone, to be frank.


That was out of context. I was specifically replying to "checking the 
Registry for validity would require a much more complicated architecture 
than is currently in place." What I meant was "I, Doug, am the wrong 
audience to whom to argue that changing the Registry or the structure of 
BCP 47 is preferable to asking Gordon to change his software testing 
architecture."


That's how BCP 47 variants are. They can mean lots of different things.


You are correct, and others on the list are perfectly at liberty to

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-07T22:47:12


This is true, and it is one good reason to use "en-Qaaa" for English 
written in Gregg Shorthand instead of "en-x-gregg".

Since the Registry includes subtags for more than 7000 languages, 160 
scripts, and every inhabited region of the Earth, it's usually a good 
bet that a private use -x- subtag (not "x-foo", but "en-x-foo") refers 
to some language variation and not an unencoded language, script, or 
region. That is one reason why support for a private-use variant subtag 
has never been high.


Nothing in the Registry or in BCP 47 exists solely to support software 
testing, as this would. It's all about identification of languages and 
language varieties.


I suppose you can, though I'm not sure what the language-identification 
benefit is. You can use existing private-use subtags for your own 
private-use. What we are talking about is introducing new subtags, or 
maybe a new framework, to support testing.


Any existing one, yes.

I appreciate that you are trying to avoid using invalid tags, and trying

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Gordon P. Hemsley — 2012-04-07T22:41:53

I don't see how this is an "us versus them" situation.

In the particular code I'm working with at the moment (which I again
assert should be irrelevant), an incoming language tag (e.g.
representing a spellchecker dictionary) is processed and then the
human-readable representation of that language tag is displayed to the
user. How would it help the user to display "Code for uncoded script"?
There would never be a spellchecker for an uncoded script, so why
would I include it? This doesn't seem all that strange to me....


I am not just testing variant subtags. I'm testing language tags as a
whole. Here are a few example lines:

is(isc.getDictionaryDisplayName("en-Cyrl-US"), "English (United
States) / Cyrillic", "'en-Cyrl-US' should display as 'English (United
States) / Cyrillic'");

is(isc.getDictionaryDisplayName("qaz-Qaaz-QZ-qxqaaaaz"), "qaz (QZ) /
Qaaz (qxqaaaaz)", "'qaz-Qaaz-QZ-qxqaaaaz' should display as 'qaz (QZ)
/ Qaaz (qxqaaaaz)'");

With just a single valid (non-private-use) subtag and a single
priv

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Michael Everson — 2012-04-07T22:38:45


What follows -x- is your private-use string. It can be whatever you want. 

You're asking us to register qxqxqxqx with the meaning "place-holder for private-use string". Why? Just use a string, privately.


Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Long "short names" (was: Re: Request to register private-use variantsubtags)

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-07T22:30:50


By the way, I also don't like ISO 3166 "short names" such as these, 
which seem to be more about national pride than clarity. How many people 
do you know who would speak of "United Republic of Tanzania" or "Lao 
People's Democratic Republic"?

Lately we have begun to establish a precedent that changes to short 
names in ISO 3166 such as "Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of," which add 
nothing to clarity but make some NB happy, need not be copied slavishly 
into the LSR. Unfortunately, efforts to simplify or clarify some of the 
existing names ran into obstacles, as it is hard to draw the line 
between big improvements and minuscule ones not worth the effort.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | < at >DougEwell

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Gordon P. Hemsley — 2012-04-07T22:13:09

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words. What I meant was, you know
that it's a variant, even if you don't know what it means, and it
doesn't affect any other part of the language tag. This differs from
the -x- extension, which could be used for anything, and which makes
everything after it also be private use.


That is all well and good, but my primary goal in this particular case
is not to check validity.


I know he didn't say that directly. But testing, IMO, is a perfectly
valid "private use". So why should there be private-use subtags for
language, region, and script, but not for variant? The impression I
keep getting is that the existing private use subtags are in the
Registry simply because they're in the ISO standards, not because
anyone thought they might actually be used for something. And since
the variant subtags are not related to any ISO standard, there are no
private-use variant subtags that are forced to be registered.


Unicode seems to have asserted by "private agreement" that 'ZZ'
represe

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Doug Ewell — 2012-04-07T22:07:37


You are really starting to be on your own at this point.


Sorry, I should have said "checking your database" instead of "checking 
the Registry."


string bogusVariant = "";
do
{
    bogusVariant = generateRandomVariant();
}
while (Exists(bogusVariant));
TestNonExistentVariant(bogusVariant);


Fair enough. I claim that, for the purposes for which BCP 47 envisions 
private-use subtags, it is perfectly reasonable for there to be no such 
thing as a private-use variant; that is what it intends the -x- 
mechanism to be used for. You have a right to define a private agreement 
that says 'qaa' means nothing, 'Qaaa' means nothing, etc., but I don't 
believe this justifies changing anything about BCP 47 or the Registry to 
support this particular testing model.


Check your database dynamically. Your database is what matters anyway to 
your app, not the Registry, since you've already excluded 'Zxxx' and 
'Zyyy' and others.


Sorry, you've reached the wrong audience here. I've spent years trying 
to convince colle

Re: Request to register private-use variant subtags

Michael Everson — 2012-04-07T21:15:34


I have nothing against private-use subtags. We have them in ISO 15924, a standard which I originated and edited. I don't see why we should ENCODE contentless subtags for testing purposes, which is what I believe you have proposed.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/