> Date: 2004-12-12 15:31 > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-languages- > > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly > > > > Moreover, the point is that countries do change, and that use > > of country codes (as provided for in RFC 3066 and in the > > proposed draft) carries with it the inherent instability > > which is characteristic of politics. ÂA quest for "stability" > > of countries seems Quixotic and oxymoronic. ÂAccording to the > > principle of stability as that term is used in defense of the > > draft, I suppose we're all intended to refer to Malawi as > > "Rhodesia" because that's what it (in part) was called 50 years > > ago, or that we're supposed to ignore the breakup of the USSR, > > Yugoslavia, etc., the reunification of Germany, etc. > > That is not at all the aim here wrt stability; rather, the aim is that a > symbolic identifier used for metadata in IT systems not change because > some government on a whim says, "We would now prefer to use 'yz' rather > than 'xy' to designate our country." If by international agreement, 'yz' becomes the designation for that country, then it is rather silly to stick one's fingers in one's ears and shout "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I don't want to hear you". A more rational approach would be to say that before such-and-such a date/time the designation was 'xy' and after that date/time (until further notice) it is 'yz'. As I have pointed out, politicians change the definitions of time zones frequently, and those who have to deal with time zone issues have found a way to cope with such change without trying to declare international standardization organizations irrelevant. > Sure, there will be changes that we need to deal with; but there's no > reason to subject all implementations, users and data to changes that > are purely cosmetic changes to things that are not designed to be read > by humans. "Designed" or not, country codes *are* read by humans; they appear in top-level domain names. Currently the ISO 639 2-letter codes mean the same thing as the last component of a domain name and as the second component of a language-tag. It's rather silly to change that correspondence simply because a few people are piqued that international agreement has been reached to change a few 2-letter codes. Â > > A related problem with the use of country codes in language > > tags is that there is not necessarily an inherent relationship > > between language and country borders. > > That is not what country IDs within a language tag is intended to > suggest. In fact, if there were inherent relationships, we probably > would never have needed to use country IDs in a language tag. I submit that it was never a good idea. Language evolves over time, even in a given place. > > The borders of Germany > > have changed many, many times. ÂIf one is referring to the > > German language as spoken by inhabitants of Alsace, using > > country codes would imply that that same language spoken by > > the same people would have been tagged at various times as > > de-DE and de-FR according to where the France-Germany border > > happened to have been determined by politicians of the time. > > That strikes me as being a rather silly way to tag language, > > but that's the precedent set by RFC 1766. > > I agree that that's a silly way to tag that language; I disagree that > RFC 1766 suggests I should tag it that way. RFC 1766 (and 3066) leave you little choice; if you wish to indicate a region, you either have to do it with ISO 639 codes or you have to register a separate tag (no separate tag for German as spoken in Alsace exists). Never mind the shortcomings of that particular example; consider "de-DE" -- does that mean Germany as it exists today, West Germany as it existed 25 years ago, Germany as it existed in the 1930s, the 1900s, ...? > > As far as I can tell, > > the draft doesn't really deal with the issue of changing borders > > or changing country names -- it merely pretends that these > > things don't happen by attempting to declare a snapshot of the > > status at some point in time as being valid for all time. > > That may be your reading of the situation, but it is not how it is seen > by those of us who have been working on this spec and examining these > issues closely. As far as I can tell, the draft pretends that the meaning of "CS" hasn't changed, and would in fact change the meaning of the currently valid RFC 3066 language tag "sr-CS". > > But the user has indicated that he speaks French, and the > > proposed registry contains a description in English only. > > Where is the implementor supposed to get the *official* > > translation for display? ÂN.B. under the current (RFC 3066) > > situation, the definitive ISO lists provide an official > > description in French. > > Neither RFC 1766 or RFC 3066 has ever presented "official" translations; Both defer to the ISO lists for definitions (not "translations") of the various codes. > this is no different for RFC 3066bis. It is very different; under the proposed draft, there is only an English definition, somebody wishing to provide a French definition finds that he has none and must resort to an unofficial translation. > Under RFC 3066, one is pointed to > ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 to get the alpha-2 and alpha-3 IDs, but it does > not anywhere state that implementors should use the English and French > language names in those ISO standards; It defines the correspondence between the codes and names as agreed to by international agreement. > exactly the same situation holds > for RFC 3066bis. SO where are the French definitions? > (Note, btw, that the names listed by ISO 639-1/-2 have > no particular "official" status; they are normative in those standards > to the extent that the indicate what language variety a given ID > denotes, but they do not claim that the particular form of the language > names have any particular status.) Well, sure. But the name is an important thing by itself. It is rather pointless to ask a user to indicate the language of a piece of text by selecting from a list "AB, ACE, ACH,..., ZHA, ZUL, ZUN" -- the user doesn't normally refer to languages by codes. It's quite a different matter to ask the user to select from "Abkhaze, Aceh, Acoli,..., Zhuang (Chuang), Zoulou, Zuni". > > > > One possibility would be two description fields. > > > > > > Why two? > > > > There are now two in the ISO lists (and, as noted, in the > > UN list). ÂI have no objection to more, but I object to > > a reduction. > > If anything, I am inclined to object to two: We now have objections to one and to two; would anybody care to try for three :-). > Note that the RFC 3066 specifies a registry that does not include French > language names. I suggest that this issue should be dropped. Yes, the current IANA registry has that problem for the non-ISO-based tags only. If the registry is to be changed to subsume ISO codes as well, that defect should be remedied. I'm willing to postpone the discussion (other problems with the proposed registry format dictate a broader solution which could easily have provision for an arbitrary number of descriptions). > > I have an implementation which (in accordance with RFC 3066) > > uses the official ISO lists. It has provision for displaying > > ISO 639 language tags with their descriptions in either of the > > two languages supported by the official 639 lists, and likewise > > for the ISO 3166 country codes. Â > > RFC 3066 *does not at any point* suggest let alone state that > implementations should use ISO 639 language names or ISO 3166 country > names for UI purposes. IMO, you are creating an issue where none exists. No, you are overlooking the fact that a set of codes with no corresponding definitions is useless. RFC 3066 defers the code/definition pairs to ISO, which provides multilingual definitions. The proposed draft would remove that multilingual characteristic. > > The specification of the > > draft is *NOT* compatible with that existing implementation > > because it removes the existing functionality of official > > descriptions in French of language and country codes. As a > > result of that incompatibility, Âthe newly proposed > > specification does not work with (at least that one) > > existing implementation (but I agree that that is a crucial > > concern). > > Display names for languages and countries are not within the scope of > RFC 1766 or RFC 3066. It is preposterous to suggest that this draft is > not compatible with existing implementations of RFC 3066 on that basis. On the contrary, it is preposterous to suggest that codes will be attached to text by magic; some human somewhere, somehow is going to have to indicate the language to something, and it certainly isn't going to be by way of a 2- or 3-letter code without some reference to what those codes *mean*. And at the present time, the meaning of those codes is defined -- bilingually -- in the ISO lists. > > It might be worthwhile considering the differences in the > > way languages tags are used, by whom they are used, and for > > what purpose. ÂThere may well be a substantial difference > > between use of a tag to represent an obscure dialect of a > > dead language in a research paper vs. tagging a piece of > > text in one of the core Internet protocols such as SMTP. > > The draft seems to ignore the needs of the core Internet > > protocols (e.g. unbounded tag length which is incompatible > > with those protocols). > > IETF language tags are used in a wide variety of applications. The > parties involved in development of this spec (the authors and others) > have examined these issues for the past several years and have arrived > at this architecture. Then why is there no provision for limiting the length of tags to a range appropriate for encoded-words (N.B. we're not talking about some obscure little-used protocol; we're talking about email, which is widely recognized as one of the core Internet application protocols!)? Why, when I pointed out that the length limit for an encoded-word, including charset name, text, encoding, and syntactic glue, did you still assume that limiting language-tags to 75 octets (leaving no room at all for the text to be tagged (!!!) let alone the charset, encoding, and necessary overhead? Something tells me that there has been insufficient attention paid to the implications for core Internet protocols. > But this spec is not an ISO standard; it is an IETF > standard. One that seeks to replace use of ISO standards with something less functional. > But > you are simply adding localization requirements to a spec for i18n > infrastructure, and I consider that not at all appropriate. No, I am complaining about removal of internationalized definitions associated with language tag components. "Localization" would be translation of the French definition into some other language. That is not my concern. My concern is the elimination of the French definition in the first place. > > One part of my claim is that non-private-use RFC 3066 tags > > up to the present time are no longer than 11 octets in length. > > Only co-incidently at the present time. As mentioned, under RFC 1766/3066 review/registration rules, excessively long tags would certainly raise objections. That's no coincidence -- it's an intentional design feature. > > As the draft, if/when approved, would close that registration > > process, that limit (unless a longer tag is registered in > > the interim) would apply for all time. > > And so that limit would be a constraint applying for all time to the > 'grandfathered' production which concerned you so much. And so it can easily be incorporated into that ABNF production. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf