Re: EWTS transliteration tag: follow-up

I’m taking the blame here, since I’m volunteering to help CLDR with such
things. But in reality, I often don’t find the time because there’s always
something more urgent to do in some other project. If anyone wants to help,
here’s the dev instructions: http://cldr.unicode.org/development

— Sascha

Am Di., 19. Feb. 2019 um 22:42 Uhr schrieb Doug Ewell <[email protected]>:

> 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
>

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