- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:17:22 +0000
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Excellent feedback. Thanks! Notes below... Richard Ishida Internationalization Activity Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/ On 08/02/2011 11:09, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > Sorry, an earlier message should have gone to a different thread. > > Anyway, while I'm at it, a few comments: > > >If you feel you really need to use these tags, you should read the > specification, rather than this article. > > tags -> subtags done > > >Extension and private use tags are introduced by a single letter tag, > > tags -> subtags done > > >or 'singleton'. The singleton for extensions is defined by the > organization that registers it. > > No, the singleton is defined in the registry. It's totally possible > (although not important enough to mention in the article) that somebody > proposes an -f- extension, but gets told s/he has to take a -b- extension. > > >The singleton for private use is x. Any subtags after the singleton > can only be 8 characters in length, however you are allowed to use > multiple subtags. > > "Any subtags after" -> "Like any subtags, subtags after" (to make clear > this is a general rule) > That paragarph now reads: Extension and private use subtags are introduced by a single letter tag, or 'singleton'. An organization can propose a singleton for an extension. It's intended use must be described by an RFC (IETF specification). The singleton will be added to the registry if it successfully passes a review. The singleton x is reserved for private use. Multiple subtags are allowed after the singleton; however, as for all subtags, they must each be 8 or less characters in length. > >Extension subtags allow for extensions to the language tag. For > example, the extension subtag u has been registered by the Unicode > Consortium to add information about language or locale behaviour. Many > locale identifiers require additional "tailorings" or options for > specific values within a language, culture, region, or other variation. > This extension provides a mechanism for using these additional > tailorings within language tags for general interchange. > > >For example, the following indicates that phonebook collation order > should be used by an application: > >de-DE-u-co-phonebk > > "that phonebook collation order should be used by an application": Not > only that, but also e.g. that sorted data in a document is sorted > according to this collation, and so on. done > > >The subtags that follow the u- extension and their meanings are > defined by RFC 6067 and by the Unicode Consortium in the Common Locale > Data Repository (CLDR). They are not defined by BCP 47. > > I'd say "The u- extension is defined in RFC 6067, which points to the > Unicode Consortium in the Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) for > details on the subtags that follow it." And I'd add a reference/link to > the exact document for this. Nice. Done. > > >Private-use subtags do not appear in the subtag registry, and are > chosen and maintained by private agreement amongst parties. > > Change "choosen and maintained by" to something like "may be used by" > > >Private use tags should be used with great care, and avoided whenever > possible, since they interfere with the interoperability that RFC 5646 > exists to promote. > > "since they interfere with the interoperability" sounds quite abstract > given the level of the rest of the document. I'd say something like > "since their meaning isn't clearly defined" or some such. I said: Because these subtags are only meaningful within private agreements and cannot be used interoperably across the Web, they should be used with great care, and avoided whenever possible. > > >The following example of a private use tag > > tag -> subtag done > > >may identify a specific type of US English, but only within a closed > community. Outside of that private agreement, its meaning cannot be > relied upon. > > I'd avoid the word "community" at all for private stuff. It's not wrong > in absolute terms, but it's too inviting and thus giving the wrong > impression. Hmm. I don't understand this one. > > >en-US-x-twain > > Regards, Martin. Thanks again. RI > > > On 2011/02/08 5:07, Richard Ishida wrote: >> Chaps, >> >> See the proposed text at >> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/temp.php#extension >> >> Please send me any comments before I make the changes live. >> >> Addison, I suggest we discuss this on Wednesday with a view to blessing >> it, if all is ok. >> >> Thanks, >> RI >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 13:17:55 UTC