Fwd: Draft AHG report

Tue Jun 25 18:45:13 CEST 2013

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Hopkins <jdhopkins8791 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Draft AHG report
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>
Cc: hopkinsjd at ldschurch.org, George Simper <simperga at ldschurch.org>,
rgcummings at ldschurch.org, slicksoftware1 at comcast.net

Hi Vlad,

Comments from George Simper below:

-          ‘cak’ – ISO defines it for “Kaqchikel”,  IANA registry has it
two ways the language is described/spelled: “Kaqchikel” and “Cakchiquel”
(as you proposed). I would go with ISO spelling since it’s also the first
choice in IANA.
--a j>> Agree
-          ISO 639 has ‘fat’ tag assigned to “Fanti” – I would go with the
ISO spelling;
>>>>> Agree
-          ‘lua’ tag is defined by ISO for “Luba-Lulua” (while ‘lub’ is
defined for Luba-Katanga). OT spec has defined ‘LUB’ tag for “Luba” – do we
really need to split them into two separate entries?
>>>>>  Yes.  Luba-Lulua is a provincial language, recognized in the
constitution for DRC. Luba-Katanga is a developing language. Both need to
be recognized. OT Spec should reflect lua a language tag for Luba-Lulua.
'lub' language tag should remain with Luba-Katanga. There are enough
dialectical differences that different spell checkers/grammar checkers will
be required.
-          We already have ‘EUQ’ tag defined for Basque;
>>>>> Agree
-          ISO has ‘cpp’ defined for Portuguese-based “Creoles”, can you
please point to the source for different spelling (Crioulo)?
>>>>> Crioulo is an alternate name/spelling. This version of Portuguese is
spoken in the Cape Verdean Islands. The Language is more commonly known as
Kabuverdianu, and is recognized by the government as a statutory language
of national identity but not on an equal status with Portuguese.(See
http://www.ethnologue.com/country/CV/languages). ISO 639-3 already has a
definition of 'kea', that should be used. The OT spec should also reflect
that same language tag.  The ISO tag of cpp for Portuguese-based "Creoles"
is much too broad to really be functional. There are a large number of
portuguese-based Creoles. They vary widely depending on the the other
languages that have been mixed in the the Portuguese. A single tag will not
adequately identify them.

-          ‘kjd’ is defined for “Southern Kiwai” and ‘cuk’ for “San Blas
Kuna” – should we go with these names instead?
>>>>> Agree
-          ‘myn’ is defined for “Mayan” language (a minor difference in
spelling only, I would go with ISO spelling);
>>>>> Agree
-          Couldn’t find ‘pob’ for “Pocomchi” anywhere – can you please
provide a source reference for it?
>>>>> Should be 'poh' in ISO 639-3 (JDH-sorry for the misspelling - eyes?)
-          ‘acr’ is ISO - defined for “Achi” (without Rabinal);
>>>>> Agree. (Rabinal is one of the dialects).
-          We already have ‘SOT’ tag defined for both Northern and Southern
Sotho – do we really need to split them?
>>>>> Yes. Both North and South Sotho are spoken in South Africa. South
Sotho is spoken in Lesotho, and is a statutory national language (1993,
Constitution, Article 3(1). There are over 6 million speakers of South
SothoNorth Sotho is spoken in South Africa, and is a Statutory National
Language for South Africa (2004, constitution, Article 6 (1).The degree of
being mutually intelligible varies, depending on sources. Some list Sotho
North as a dialect of Sotho South. Others do not. Based on information
available (www.ethnologue.com/languages/nso,
www.ethnologue.com/languages/sot), they are different languages and should
be identified separately.'sot' should remain for Sotho-South. 'nso' should
be used for Sotho North and added to the OT Spec).
-          We already have ‘TKM’ defined for “Turkmen”;
>>>>> Agree. Can we resolve the TKM in the OT spec with the tuk in the
639-3 spec by adding it as an alternate?
-          ‘tvl’ is defined for “Tuvalu” (I’d go with ISO spelling);
>>>>> Agree
-          ‘esu’ is defined by ISO as “Central Yupik”.
>>>>> Agree

 John D. Hopkins

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:

>  Hi John,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for contacting me and sorry for my delayed response – I was
> traveling for the last two weeks and is now digging through the backlog.
> It’s good to hear that you are back with your organization (albeit
> temporarily), and I am sorry to hear about George being in a car accident –
> I wish he will get well soon.****
>
> ** **
>
> On the subject of script and language tag updates – I would appreciate if
> you could look through the comments I sent earlier to the email list (see
> my email attached) and respond with your suggestions or comments. We
> absolutely need to have it all finalized by early July, and I think we are
> on track to make it happen. Please let me know if you need any additional
> information, or you can simply respond on the list and renew the
> discussions there.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you,****
>
> Vladimir****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* John Hopkins [mailto:jdhopkins8791 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:01 PM
> *To:* Levantovsky, Vladimir
> *Subject:* Re: Draft AHG report****
>
> ** **
>
> Vlad, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your mention of me and inclusion in the discussion. I am now
> back with my organization as a temporary contractor for at least a month,
> as of yesterday. I also learned today that the individual I referred you
> to, George Simper, was in a very bad car accident about two months ago and
> just got back today, facing a large backlog of work. So that is his excuse
> for not getting back to you on your questions. On his behalf, I offer our
> apologies. I will try to look into our past discussions further and see
> what I can do to move things along further, as well as do the other work I
> am contracted for.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> John D. Hopkins****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20130625/7131d48f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: unknown sender
Subject: no subject
Date: no date
Size: 111688
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20130625/7131d48f/attachment.mht>