Fwd: I-D Action: draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00.txt

I just found the following announcement (see end of this email).

I'm forwarding it to the ietf-languages list because that's where a lot 
of the language tagging experts are.

(Manu, I suggest you subscribe to this list for the duration of this 
discussion, to make sure you are not missing any comments.)

The draft is very short. Having had a quick look at it, I came up with 
the following comments:

- The (only) example, "ar-d-rtl", doesn't exactly reflect what we
   consider good language tagging practice. It's similar to something
   such as en-Latn, where the "Latn" script subtag is just plain obvious
   and therefore not needed. So some examples that show more clear
   cases where the directionality information is necessary should be
   given.

- There is quite a bit of information about duplicate extensions and
   canonicalization. As far as I understand, this is just repetition
   from RFC 5646, but this should be stated more clearly. Maybe move
   the text about duplication to the canonicalization (sub (1))section,
   and start that section with a sentence saying: "This section explains
   the rules regarding duplicate information and canonicalization
   defined in RFC 5646. The full rules are given in RFC 5646, and in
   case of conflicts, RFC 5646 is correct."

- There's absolutely no text about where this extension would be
   helpful or useful. As far as I understand, it's not appropriate
   e.g. for HTML, because HTML has the dir attribute. There should
   be a clear discussion about places where this extension is
   desirable (maybe even needed) and places where it's irrelevant,
   useless, confusing, or counterproductive.

- There should be a discussion about how this extension interacts
   (or not) with "bidi formatting characters".

- There should be some text about what "auto" exactly means.
   It's probably something like "first strong", but it could
   be something else (e.g. majority of strong,...)

- There may also be a need for a subtag meaning "just follow
   the context around you", which is different from "auto".

- The registration form gives a mailing list of
   [email protected]. While this may be the mailing list
   where the idea for this kind of extension originated, it doesn't
   feel like being the right place for discussions that may come up
   e.g. 5 or 10 years down the line.

- I'd make canonicalization, as well as examples, independent
   sections and in any case eliminate the third level of the TOC
   hierarchy (the current 2.1.1).

Regards,   Martin.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00.txt
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 14:12:29 -0700
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.


         Title           : BCP 47 Extension D
         Author          : Manu Sporny
	Filename        : draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2019-05-25

Abstract:
    This document specifies an Extension to BCP 47 which provides subtags
    that specify language direction.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
..