Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050331191828.0ca22ad0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:29:23 +0200
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation
In-Reply-To: <091b01c53614$55a3c850$857e3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
References: <20050331144959.66075.qmail@web42004.mail.yahoo.com>
	<091b01c53614$55a3c850$857e3009@sanjose.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 19:09 31/03/2005, Mark Davis said:
>The plan is for transliterations to be added to CLDR at some point, and 
>that would provide stable, predictable IDs that could be used for 
>variants. I suggest that we not try to incorporate transliteration 
>variants prematurely. For some more formal, structured mechanism of 
>describing the variants, it would a perfect case for the extension 
>mechanism proposed in the draft, where some other RFC could have
>something like ru-Latn-t-ungegn-t-en.

This kind of remark obviously make me react. Whose plan: IETF, IESG, IAB?

1. this CLDR plan should be documented in the Draft as per Charter. At 
least to explain why it is not supported now.
2. if I am correct a locale is loaded once in a machine not every time it 
wants to change contexts. Obviously a Locale could support many languages. 
Where is the locale to be loaded from? If it is from the IANA should not a 
provision be made in the IANA section. If this is from an outside URL 
listed on the IANA? This should be documented.
3. I am glad you adopt the thinking that the first draft should be a 
framework, completed by additional specialized RFCs. Very positive.

Thank you.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru