gmane.ietf.ltru

M.T. Carrasco Benitez

M.T. Carrasco Benitez — 2013-03-02T17:37:18

dfmfu gdh.vsd/http://www.leyendasdemiedo.com/dgoah/uryieoq1ce1h.ps95m3o?6esgclwo9pt hzst.vsd/tbdfrmb xajg.vsd/

Fw: CORRECTION: Help the NomCom

Randy Presuhn — 2012-11-01T18:46:51

Hi -

Forwarded for your information, and, hopefully, action.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "NomCom Chair" <nomcom-chair< at >ietf.org>
To: "Working Group Chairs" <wgchairs< at >ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 5:17 AM
Subject: CORRECTION: Help the NomCom

I sent a message several hours ago requesting that you help and make 
your working group aware that the NomCom is looking for input from the 
community. This message had a minor error. The NomCom needs to 
receive community input by November 11, 2012. 

The full text of the corrected message is below
---------------------------------------------------

The IETF Nominations Committee (NomCom) continues to seek input from
the IETF Community. The NomCom would greatly appreciate any help you
could provide in making members of your working group aware of ways in
which they can provide valuable feedback to the NomCom.

In order to ensure that your input is received in time to be useful, the 
NomCom needs to receive community feedback on or before

Re: Windows 8 user languages and BCP 47

Mark Davis ☕ — 2012-03-01T18:03:26

That's a great achievement; I know something of what it is like to get all
of the pieces lined up  in a complex product (or set of products) to make
something like this happen. It takes a lot of work…

I'll look forward to trying it out; congratulations to you and your team,
Peter!

Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**



On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:43, Peter Constable <petercon< at >microsoft.com>wrote:

Windows 8 user languages and BCP 47

Peter Constable — 2012-02-29T20:43:21

[I know this will sound like a product plug. It may be that in part, but I really do want to applaud BCP 47.]

The Windows 8 Consumer Preview went live today for the public to download and try out. One of the changes in this release is in the area of international settings, with the new Language control panel as the focal point. In previous versions of Windows, users were very limited (relative to the thousands of known languages) in terms of getting Windows to recognize the languages that they use. Thanks to ISO 639-3 and BCP 47, this is radically changed in Windows 8: users are now able to indicate preferences from thousands of languages (and tens of thousands of language-script pairings).

To keep from having an overwhelming number of options from being presented, we don't list every possibility by default. But using the search feature when you add a language, you can search on many additional language names, and you can also search using a BCP 47 tag. Any "valid" BCP 47 language tag will be accepted, and

Re: Availability of 't' extension document and data

Peter Saint-Andre — 2011-12-07T19:28:39

Right now it's running around 6 weeks on average. In any case, this kind
of thing can be fixed during AUTH48.

Peter

Re: Availability of 't' extension document and data

Randy Presuhn — 2011-12-07T19:06:26

Hi -


Yup.


It *can* go surprisinly fast, particularly if other standards-track
documents in the editor's queue depend on it for their normative
references.


Agreed.  We're not dealing with automata.

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Re: Availability of 't' extension document and data

Mark Davis ☕ — 2011-12-07T18:42:32

The editorial process for the RFCs involves the authors, so there is no
danger of that happening (and I've never seen it happen in less than 2
months anyway). So I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one, Doug.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
*
*
*
[https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033]
*



On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:14, Doug Ewell <doug< at >ewellic.org> wrote:

Availability of 't' extension document and data

Doug Ewell — 2011-12-07T18:14:36

According to the IETF Datatracker, draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07 ("BCP 47
Extension T - Transformed Content") has been approved by IESG and
forwarded to the RFC Editor queue.

The time a document normally spends in the RFC Editor queue varies
dramatically, and can be unexpectedly long (as BCP 47 veterans know),
but the RFC Editor FAQ notes that "Typical time to publish is 1-2
months."

Section 2.9 of draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07 says, "The data and
specification will be available by the time this internet draft has been
approved.  The description field is in the process of being added to
CLDR."  The first sentence is repeated in Section 2.1.  This was an
ongoing concern of mine during the draft process, which was partially
addressed by including sample data in Section 2.9.

According to the CLDR "Releases/Downloads" page, Version 2.1 of CLDR is
scheduled to be released on February 1, 2012.  This is eight weeks from
now.

What is the likelihood that the data for the 't' extension actually will
be made availabl

Re: Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ — 2011-08-31T21:37:52

I agree; will update the working draft. I'll also go ahead and post that.

Thanks!

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 20:45, <yoshito_umaoka< at >us.ibm.com> wrote:

Fw: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

2011-08-31T03:45:26

Sorry,

order of the fields in a t extension is significant" (a field consists 
from <sep> and subtags represented by 3*8alphanum). 

My suggestion above was wrong - I meant

1) The order of the fields in a t extension is not significant.
2) The order of subtags within a field is significant.


Yoshito Umaoka


----- Forwarded by Yoshito Umaoka/Westford/IBM on 08/30/2011 11:41 PM 
-----

From:   Yoshito Umaoka/Westford/IBM
To:     Mark Davis ☕ <mark< at >macchiato.com>
Cc:     Doug Ewell <doug< at >ewellic.org>, "Gordon P. Hemsley" 
<gphemsley< at >gmail.com>, ltru< at >ietf.org
Date:   08/30/2011 11:35 PM
Subject:        Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext



Thanks for the feedback! 

Updated working drafts: 
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html 
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt 
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml
Mark 
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


One thing which we may need clarification... 

2.3 (Canonicalization) Canonicalization). 

I think this line does not match 2.3 Canonica

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

2011-08-31T03:35:11

Thanks for the feedback!

Updated working drafts:
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml
Mark
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


One thing which we may need clarification...

Section 2.3 (Canonicalization) Canonicalization). 

I think this line does not match 2.3 Canonicalization - because the 
referenced section says - "with the fields ordered by the separators, 
alphabetically. "
I think we don't want to make the order of <field> significant - for 
example, assume there is a new <sep> "x0" is introduced - 

und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007-x0-foo

and

und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-x0-foo-m0-ungegn-2007

would be equivalent (but, the canonical representation is - 
"und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007-x0-foo" - because field "m0-*" and 
"field "x0-*" are sorted alphabetical order).

If my interpretation is correct, Section 2.2 d should be changed to "The 
order of the fields in a t extension is significant" (a field consists

draft-davis-t-langtag-ext...

Phillips, Addison — 2011-08-31T02:34:56

I suppose it should go without saying, since I'm one of the authors, but I think that the current draft of the -t- extension looks like it covers the important cases and provides the necessary future extensibility, so I think it's ready for advancement before the IESG. I also intend to use it internally at Lab in some of our future products, since it addresses needs in language identification.

Regards,

Addison

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

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ — 2011-08-26T18:30:04

Thanks for the feedback!

Updated working drafts:

   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html>
   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt>
   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml>

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:41, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley< at >gmail.com>wrote:


done



Whoops, missed that in the title. fixed.



That would be too many commas, but added : after "to"

BTW, This will also undergo review by the RFC editor, so it is probably not
worth focusing too much on the lower-level typographical issues, especially
those that are a matter of preference.



good point. fixed.



Fixed ",with"



done



done, but we'll see what the RFC editor does with this, since it is a copy
of a similar section that is now an RFC.



Yes, thanks!

Note to others: also fixe

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Gordon P. Hemsley — 2011-08-26T13:41:28

Editorial nits:

The second to last paragraph in section 2.1 contains a sentence that reads:
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
change in meaning in a substantial way."

I presume that the 'never' is supposed to scope over 'change', but it
doesn't, as currently written.

I suggest rephrasing that sentence to something like these:
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
changed in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted nor
changed in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted and do
not change in meaning in a substantial way."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted or
substantially changed in meaning."
"Extension subtags, once defined by LDML, are never retracted nor
substantially changed in meaning."

My preference would probably be one of the last two.

Also, and maybe I missed it, but I thought it was agreed to change the
regi

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Doug Ewell — 2011-08-26T14:34:04


Damn, I missed that in reviewing.

I agree that "Transforms" is best avoided as a noun for ordinary people,
even if CLDR people are familiar with it, and would add that simply
"Content Transformations" would make a better description than this
"Specifying..." gerund phrase.

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


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Avram Lyon — 2011-08-23T22:04:20

As one of the instigators of language subtag proposals in the past for
transliteration schemes, I can say that the proposed extension looks
to cover all of the use cases I currently anticipate, and we're
looking into incorporating this extension into the BCP 47-based
language logic in the Zotero project and the citeproc-js
implementation of Citation Style Language.

Thanks to the authors for putting this together.

Avram Lyon

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ — 2011-08-23T18:32:32

Thanks! I fixed both of those.

Updated working drafts:

   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html>
   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt>
   - draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml<http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/docs/rfc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml>


Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:17, Doug Ewell <doug< at >ewellic.org> wrote:

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Doug Ewell — 2011-08-23T17:17:08

I've read through this document and have no significant objections.

My earlier and oft-stated concerns about the data not being available
until the document is approved have been largely satisfied; I am
confident that the sample data in Section 2.9 will be representative of
the real data.

I'm looking forward to this extension structure becoming available for
use in language tags.

Editorial nits, neither of which should hold up approval:

1. In Section 2.5, item (a), "the mechanism subtag 'UNGEGN'" should be
changed to "the mechanism subtag 'ungegn'", using the same casing as the
tag which immediately follows.

2. In Section 2.9, paragraph 4, the XML structure example makes
reference to the "collation" key from the 'u' extension, which might be
confusing.

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


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ — 2011-08-23T00:38:48

All,

We'd like to not have this drag out more than it needs to, so could people
please look the document over to see if there are any showstoppers?

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 09:07, Mark Davis ☕ <mark< at >macchiato.com> wrote:

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

CE Whitehead — 2011-08-10T17:39:45

Forgot to cut the top of this message (the automatic signature that's only for personal emails that I forgot to turn off) last time; my apologies.

Here is the message again (sorry for the double post).
Sincerely,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar< at >hotmail.com 
From: addison< at >lab126.com
To: cewcathar< at >hotmail.com; ltru< at >ietf.org
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:18 -0700
Subject: RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext




Thanks  for your feedback Addison; SHOULD is there in the draft -- in the section just above  and that's why I pounced on it (I know it's a magic word); so if it's not the right word just go for the present tense; use "is;" "would" sounds way to "iffy" here  (it would be nice if . . . it ever could happen . . . that the 2007 version could be returned).
(That's just my editorial opinion of course, but I have done a little editing; also have taken courses in line editing and techincal editing; thanks).
Sincerely,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar< at >hotmail.com  From: ltru-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces< at >ietf.org]

Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

CE Whitehead — 2011-08-10T17:26:42



Damn this indecision;
I don't know;
shall I take an axe to it,
or shall I let it grow.

--from Judith Wright, "That Seed"

From: addison< at >lab126.com
To: cewcathar< at >hotmail.com; ltru< at >ietf.org
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:25:18 -0700
Subject: RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext




Thanks  for your feedback Addison; SHOULD is there in the draft -- in the section just above  and that's why I pounced on it (I know it's a magic word); so if it's not the right word just go for the present tense; use "is;" "would" sounds way to "iffy" here  (it would be nice if . . . it ever could happen . . . that the 2007 version could be returned).
(That's just my editorial opinion of course, but I have done a little editing; also have taken courses in line editing and techincal editing; thanks).
Sincerely,
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar< at >hotmail.com  From: ltru-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 1:39 PM
To: ltru< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext