W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2005

Fwd: WG Action: Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:40:01 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20050311140947.03afe610@localhost>
To: www-international@w3.org

For your information.
(the mailing list is now operational)

 >To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
 >Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,Martin Duerst
 ><duerst@w3.org>, ltru@ietf.org
 >From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary-reply@ietf.org>
 >Subject: WG Action: Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

 >A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applicationa Area.
 >For additional information, please contact the Area Directors
 >or the WG Chairs.
 >
 >+++
 >
 >Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
 >-------------------------------------
 >
 >Current Status: Active Working Group
 >
 >Chair(s):
 >Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
 >Martin Duerst <mduerst@w3.org>
 >
 >Applications Area Director(s):
 >Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
 >Scott Hollenbeck <sah@428cobrajet.net>
 >
 >Applications Area Advisor:
 >Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
 >
 >Mailing Lists:
 >General Discussion: ltru@ietf.org
 >To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
 >Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/index.html
 >
 >Description of Working Group:
 >
 >RFC 3066 and its predecessor, RFC 1766, defined language tags for use
 >on the Internet. Language tags are necessary for many applications,
 >ranging from cataloging content to computer processing of text. The
 >RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely adopted in various
 >protocols and text formats, including HTML, XML, and CLDR, as the best
 >means of identifying languages and language preferences. Since the
 >publication of RFC 3066, however, several issues have faced
 >implementors of language tags:
 >
 >* Stability and accessibility of the underlying ISO standards
 >* Difficulty with registrations and their acceptance
 >* Lack of clear guidance on how to identify script and region where
 >necessary
 >* Lack of parseability and the ability to verify well-formedness.
 >* Lack of specified algorithms, apart from pure prefix matching,
 >for operations on language tags.
 >
 >This working group will address these issues by developing two
 >documents. The first is a successor to RFC 3066. It will describe the
 >structure of the IANA registry and how the registered tags will relate
 >to the generative mechanisms (originally described in RFC 3066, but
 >likely to be updated by the document). In order to be complete, it
 >will need to address each of the challenges set out above:
 >
 >- For stability, it is expected that the document will describe how
 >the meaning of language tags remains stable, even if underlying
 >references should change, and how the structure is to remain stable in
 >the future. For accessibility, it is to provide a mechanism for easily
 >determining whether a particular subtag is valid as of a given date,
 >without onerous reconstruction of the state of the underlying standard
 >as of that time.
 >
 >- For extensibility, it is expected that the document will describe
 >how generative mechanisms could use ISO 15924 and UN M.49 codes
 >without explicit registration of all combinations. The
 >current registry contains pairs like uz-Cyrl/uz-Latn and
 >sr-Cyrl/sr-Latn, but RFC 3066 contains no general mechanism or
 >guidance for how scripts should be incorporated into language tags;
 >this replacement document is expected to provide such a mechanism.
 >
 >- It is also expected to provide mechanisms to support the evolution
 >of the underlying ISO standards, in particular ISO 639-3, mechanisms to
 >support variant registration and formal extensions, as well as
 >allowing generative private use when necessary.
 >
 >- It is expected to specify a mechanism for easily identifying the role
 >of each subtag in the language tag, so that, for example, whenever a
 >script code or country code is present in the tag it can be extracted,
 >even without access to a current version of the registry. Such a
 >mechanism would clearly distinguish between well-formed and valid
 >language tags, to allow for maximal compatibility between
 >implementations released at different times, and thus using different
 >versions of the registry.
 >
 >The second document will describe matching algorithms for use with
 >language tags. Language tags are used in a broad variety of contexts
 >and it is not expected that any single matching algorithm will fit all
 >needs. Developing a small set of common matching algorithms does seem
 >likely to contribute to interoperability, however, as it seems likely
 >that using protocols could reference these well-known algorithms in
 >their specifications.
 >
 >This working group will not take over the existing review function of
 >the ietf-languages list. The ietf-languages list will continue to
 >review tags according to RFC 3066 until the first document produced by
 >the WG is approved by the IESG for publication as an RFC. Then it will
 >review according to whatever procedures the first document specifies.
 >
 >Goals and Milestones:
 >Mar 05    Sumbit first working group draft of registry-structure draft
 >Apr 05    Submit first draft of matching algorithms draft
 >May 05    Submit first draft of matching algorithms draft
 >Aug 05    Submit matching algorithms draft for IETF Last Call 
Received on Friday, 11 March 2005 05:44:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:04 GMT