[Accessforall] Last call for comments: Codes for languages in ISO 24751 and the registry

Christophe Strobbe strobbe at hdm-stuttgart.de
Fri Oct 5 11:09:14 EDT 2012


Am Do, 4.10.2012, 21:23 schrieb Gregg Vanderheiden:
> Great discussion
>
> We need to have someone who will own this issue and manage it through to
> resolution.
>
> Christophe, can you take ownership of this  -- and work with everyone to
> find a resolution?


OK.
I currently consider IETF BCP 47 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47> the
most appropriate standard to use for the "language" term in the registry.
In addition to what I wrote in the last two days, BCP 47 is also the
format for the lang and xml:lang attributes in the current HTML5 draft:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/global-attributes.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes>.
If anybody wants to speak against using IETF BCP 47 to define the value
space for "language" in the registry, please do so by Tuesday evening next
week (10 October).

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe


>
>
> Gregg
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Christophe Strobbe <strobbe at hdm-stuttgart.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> A few things to bear in mind before making this decision:
>> 1. ISO 639-2 (or any other part of ISO 639) just covers the codes for
>> the
>> identification of languages, not subcodes for countries, scripts, etc.
>> 2. IETF RFC 4646 describes how to combine ISO 639 language codes with
>> ISO
>> 3166 country codes (and other optional subtags), but prefers two-letter
>> language codes over three-letter codes if the former type of code is
>> available. So that would gives us en-CA instead of eng-CA. So if we want
>> to use codes like en-CA, we should refer to IETF RFC 4646; in order to
>> use
>> tags like eng-CA, we would need to invent our own "standard" for
>> language
>> codes. If we prefer IETF RFC 4646 tags, we will need to check if ISO
>> standards can use IETF RFCs as normative references.
>> 3. The two-letter language code is what you find in HTML pages, the
>> OpenDocument format, and many other formats. That might be the reason
>> why
>> this type of code was in the sample preference sets. If we use
>> three-letter codes, some parts of the GPII/Cloud4all architecture will
>> need to refer to a table that maps two-letter codes to three-letter
>> codes,
>> because the two-letter codes seem to be the dominant convention (but
>> that
>> might change; e.g. Dublin Core seems to accept both types of codes).
>>
>>
>> I am not speaking against using codes like eng-CA, but we should know
>> what
>> the impact of this decision would be.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>> Am Do, 4.10.2012, 07:18 schrieb Gregg Vanderheiden:
>>> OK
>>>
>>> 	Does anyone want to SPEAK AGAINST doing as Colin outlined which seems
>>> to
>>> be in line with everyone else's comments.
>>>
>>> 	  If so please post any counter thoughts in the next few days.    We
>>> have
>>> everyone I think on the two lists attached so we can make a decision if
>>> there are no counter proposals to consider
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Director Trace R&D Center
>>> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
>>> and Biomedical Engineering
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>>
>>> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
>>> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
>>> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
>>> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Colin Clark <colinbdclark at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We should be using ISO 639-2 language codes throughout the system. If
>>>> not, it's a bug.
>>>>
>>>> If I remember correctly, this was probably introduced by the UI
>>>> Options
>>>> team who were integrating at very short notice with the GPII
>>>> framework.
>>>> I believe UI Options can support both two- and three-character
>>>> language
>>>> codes (as is often the case).
>>>>
>>>> As a speaker of "eng-CA", I don't see any reason not to simply use ISO
>>>> 639-2 from the start and to also support country codes, as Christophe
>>>> suggests. I also think it's probably worth supporting the
>>>> two-character
>>>> subset for interoperability if possible.
>>>>
>>>> Colin
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-10-03, at 1:18 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think that having language and country codes is a great idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wd DO need to decide which codes to use.  I think the square brackets
>>>>> were because an official decision was not made yet
>>>>>
>>>>> But I think using the ISO codes for both would be the right thing to
>>>>> do.  I added the arch list to see if someone knows  why two letter
>>>>> codes are currently used.  (W3C?)
>>>>>
>>>>> We also should say something like  "if no country is specified then
>>>>> ...."
>>>>> (is there a default country for all languages specified somewhere?)
>>>>> we might say the country of origin -- but I'm not sure all languages
>>>>> have an (existing) country of origin anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch Christophe.
>>>>> Lets get a decision and then record it in the Glossary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if we should have a decision registry somewhere since we
>>>>> have
>>>>> so many people involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>> Director Trace R&D Center
>>>>> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
>>>>> and Biomedical Engineering
>>>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>>>>
>>>>> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
>>>>> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
>>>>> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
>>>>> http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Christophe Strobbe
>>>>> <christophestrobbe at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While creating a preference set for one of the personas in the
>>>>>> Cloud4all smarthouse simulation
>>>>>> <http://wiki.gpii.net/index.php/SmartHouses_Preference_Sets>, I
>>>>>> looked
>>>>>> into language codes and found the following:
>>>>>> (1) ISO/IEC 24751:2008 (all subparts) refer to ISO 639-2:1998 for
>>>>>> language codes. In the registry, the value space for "language" is
>>>>>> [ISO 639-2/T] (I don't know the reason for the square brackets).
>>>>>> According to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-2_codes>
>>>>>> and <http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php>, the
>>>>>> ISO
>>>>>> 639-2 codes are three-letter codes (e.g. "eng" for English, "dut" or
>>>>>> "nld" for Dutch, "fre" or "fra" for French, etc). However, the JSON
>>>>>> preference sets I've seen so far (I mean those by the GPII/Cloud4all
>>>>>> Architecture team) use two-letter codes (see Carla's, Nisha's and
>>>>>> Timothy's preference sets). Am I misreading the information I found
>>>>>> about ISO 639-2?
>>>>>> (2) Related to this is the absence of country information, i.e.
>>>>>> combining a language code with a country code from ISO 3166 (see
>>>>>> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/faq.html#22>). This is
>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>> to text-to-speech engines and Braille. For example for Dutch, not
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> people in Flanders are keen on TTS that uses pronunciation rules
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the Netherlands. Braille conventions also vary between countries
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> use the same official language (well, they even vary between Braille
>>>>>> centres, but let's not go into that).
>>>>>> (3) Note that IETF RFC 4646 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646>
>>>>>> gives
>>>>>> preference to the shortest ISO 639 code (2 or three letters) that is
>>>>>> available for a language (check the ABNF syntax under
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646#section-2.1>). This base code
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> then be combined with an ISO 3166 country code, to create tags like
>>>>>> en-US (American English) and en-GB (British English). However, IETF
>>>>>> RFC 4646 is referenced neither by ISO 24751 nor by the registry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christophe Strobbe
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Colin Clark
>>>> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
>>>> http://fluidproject.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christophe Strobbe
>
>


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
Akademischer Mitarbeiter
Adaptive User Interfaces Research Group
Hochschule der Medien
Nobelstraße 10
70569 Stuttgart
Tel. +49 711 8923 2749



More information about the Accessforall mailing list