Re: EWTS transliteration tag: follow-up
Mark Davis ☕️ <[email protected]> Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:49:10 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.languages |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJ2xs_G+WVT2x4Ta9vnzazzvEWyrQKh0yXyomTyfn_sMMMEB8w@mail.gmail.com> |
I got this one, just added both. Sorry for the delay; requests for adding BCP47 identifiers should normally be done right away. I'll add a topic to the committee agenda to add a dedicated component for them. BTW, this will be easier for people once we move to Github/Jira, since they will be able to submit pull-requests.... Mark On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:32 AM Sascha Brawer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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