BCP 47 Extension T - Transformed Content
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Document Action: 'BCP 47 Extension T - Transformed Content' to Informational RFC (draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'BCP 47 Extension T - Transformed Content' (draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-07.txt) as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Pete Resnick. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext/
Technical Summary This document specifies an Extension to BCP 47 which provides subtags for specifying the source language or script of transformed content, including content that has been transliterated, transcribed, or translated, or in some other way influenced by the source. It also provides for additional information used for identification. Working Group Summary This document is not the product of a WG. However, it did get extensive review on the email@example.com mailing list through July and August of 2010. There were a number of comments on the content of the document that have been addressed by the authors diligently. There was also a protracted discussion about the party responsible for the *contents* of this subtag: BCP47 defines the procedure to register the subtag itself (as this document does), but the registry entry delegates the *contents* of the subtag to an authority defined in the registry. In this document, the authority for the contents of the "t" subtag is the Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) at the Unicode Consortium. Though this is the way BCP47 anticipates management of a subtag, several people were concerned that this subtag was of general interest and therefore having the Unicode Consortium be in charge of the contents was problematic and that it should be done in the IETF. After extensive discussion, text was added make the process in the Unicode Consortium more open and inclusive and this made for (at least rough) consensus on the issue. There were also concerns raised about the data at the CLDR pointed to by the registry are to be contained in a ".zip" file, but commenters seemed to be satisfied that the data was alternatively available as documented in the draft. Document Quality The review on the firstname.lastname@example.org list was extensive and key players from both inside and outside the Unicode Consortium community have commented on the document and had their concerns addressed. Personnel Pete Resnick <email@example.com> is the responsible AD and document shepherd.