Re: EWTS transliteration tag: follow-up

Élie_Roux wrote:
 
> About how many transliteration tag requests were filed since it was
> decided to reroute them to CLDR? How many reached CLDR?
 
I decided to reply now so you wouldn't think list members were
stonewalling or otherwise intentionally not responding. However, neither
I nor anyone else has evidently had time to research this question.
 
If you mean "filed" with this group, someone would have to go through
the list archives, which are only available one message at a time and
not in digest form, and look for discussions. I can do that, but not
right now. (You could also do that; the list archives are public.)
 
> The reason I'm asking is because after 18 months, my two tickets to
> include EWTS and IAST in CLDR ([1], [2]) are yet to see any progress
> and I don't know what to do to normalize these tags.
 
According to the CLDR ticket links you included, 10547 (EWTS) and 10548
(IAST) were targeted 4 months ago for "35-optional", which I guess means
the CLDR people left it open whether to include them in release 35. You
might want to check the alpha or beta data, but it looks like there was
no further discussion and so it might be better to ping CLDR for
information. (We aren't them.)
 
9895 has been targeted for "UNSCH", which I guess means it's on the back
burner. This ticket seems to be about collation rules and not a
transliteration identifier as such, and so I'm not sure why that link
was included here.
 
> CLDR 34 only includes 20 transliteration tags so there doesn't seem to
> be any overflow of such tags that would need to be reviewed.
 
Again, we aren't CLDR, so we can't speak for their workload or
priorities.
 
> Also, the
> processing time for a request on this mailing list seems relatively
> short (a few days/weeks), while the processing time at CLDR apparently
> takes a few dozen months (other requests seem to take a similar amount
> of time, see [3]).
 
Noted. We actually take a minimum of two weeks to approve any subtag,
since there is a compulsory review period specified in RFC 5646.
 
> My point is not to judge or annoy anyone, but I'm
> just asking for an acknowledgment of this situation that makes it
> virtually impossible to register transliteration tags, and maybe for a
> reconsideration of the process. What do you think? Could the automatic
> delegation to CLDR be reconsidered?
 
We decided, rightly IMHO, that because CLDR has established an extension
and a mechanism for registering transliteration identifiers, it would
not be a good idea for ietf-languages to register them directly as
variant subtags. This would perpetuate a situation in which, for any
given transliteration scheme, it would be unclear and inconsistent which
mechanism to use.
 
If you are concerned about CLDR's time frame and feel a sense of urgency
to get these encoded, I suggest you communicate that to CLDR. The fact
that our process is faster than theirs doesn't mean we are the right
venue. I know this isn't the expedient answer you were looking for.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
 

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages