Date: 2004-12-12 19:20
From: Mark Crispin <mrc(_at_)cac(_dot_)washington(_dot_)edu>
To: ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Bruce Lilly wrote:
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".
What is silly is saying that every language tag has to have a date/time
attribute associated with it so that computer software managing that text
knows the language of that text.
In the specific cases of the core Internet protocols that
I have mentioned, there *is* a date/time attribute in the
form of an RFC 822 Date field. If we're talking about
some file stored on some machine, every OS that I know of
has a date/time stamp associated with that file. If you
have something else in mind, a concrete description and/
or example might help.
It is a disaster for language identifiers to get recycled. Something has
to make those identifiers unique. Your notion will force the inclusion of
a date/time stamp in language tags, to restore the uniqueness that you are
so excruciatingly eager to abolish.
I'm not "eager to abolish" "uniqueness". There never was
any guarantee that codes would never change. Both RFCs
1766 and 3066 specifically mention changes as a fact of
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, ...?
For the 98% case, it does not matter at all.
But it does matter if, one day, "DE" becomes Denmark.
In either case, to understand precisely what geographical
area is referred to requires knowing the date to more or
less degree of accuracy.
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".
No, it restores the previous meaning of sr-CS.
But what of the current meaning under the current
standard (RFC 3066 + ISO 639 + ISO 3166)? Surely
the draft would change the meaning of that valid
RFC 3066 language-tag.
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
Why is the situation for French different from someobody wishing to
provide a Lower Slobbobian definition?
French is an official language used by the ISO in its
publications. "Lower Slobbobian" is probably about as
meaningful as "BLURDYBOOP".
SO where are the French definitions?
Ask a person who is bilingual in English and French to provide one.
That would lack definitiveness which characterizes the
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),
Abkhaze, Aceh, Acoli,..., Zhuang (Chuang), Zoulou, and Zuni are not
language tags. So what's your point?
They are the human-readable names corresponding to codes.
For interoperability, it is insufficient to label any and
all languages as "ZZ" with no definition of what "ZZ"
means. Moreover, it is necessary for two (or more) communicating
parties to *agree* on the meaning of "ZZ"; that is done
by assigning the code "ZZ" to an agreed-upon name. The
code "ZZ" is nothing more than shorthand for that agreed-upon
name. If one produces some text in the BCP 18 sense of "text"
(spoken, written, signed, etc.), it is useful to indicate
the language of that text; languages are known to humans by
names of languages -- the codes are, as noted, merely
shorthand for those names. Likewise, somebody presented
with some text may desire or need to know the language of
that text; informing that person that the language has code
"QZ" is unlikely to mean anything to most people -- only
the name corresponding to the shorthand code is likely to
be meaningful to persons other than those involved in
standardizing the codes.
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
Why is it a problem? Why is it a defect?
Because it unnecessarily reduces by 50% the information
content currently available.
On the contrary, it is preposterous to suggest that codes
will be attached to text by magic
Here is where you are misled. Many of these tags are embedded within the
text itself. That text may long outlive its author in an archive.
Which is precisely why the code by itself is meaningless
without the associated language name. If I write "blurfl
(lang=QZ)" in a hypothetical diary, that will be
incomprehensible unless the meaning of "QZ" is known.
You have not explained how the code came to be "embedded
within the text itself" -- surely the author didn't say
(or write, or sign) "this text is in language QZ"; most
likely the language was indicated by name, or by some proxy
representing the name (such as a locale).
Ietf mailing list