Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050211001948.04b399c0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:29:46 +0100
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	<ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE050608C7@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE050608C7@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: RE: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

I am sorry to ask again, I try but I have real difficulty in undestanding 
the simplest thing. I am to present this list during a meeting at the 
Ministry of Research on Monday. I will explain them first that "the IANA is 
a clearing house for protocol parameters". And then?

May be what would be useful would be you to provide some information a 
computer could read and use for something ? Otherwise why do you register 
it in a clearinghouse for protocol parameters? If they ask "could it not be 
just a printed list?". I do not know what to anwser.

Thank you.
jfc


At 17:03 10/02/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>I gave references that demonstrated the script-usage contrast, which is
>the significant issue for the registration in question. I followed the
>example in the already-approved registrations for az-Arab, az=Cyrl, etc.
>
>On the basis of established precedent, I don't see how the documentation
>provided can be considered insufficient.
>
>
>Peter Constable
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:24 AM
> > To: Peter Constable; ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
> > Subject: Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
> >
> >
> >
> > --On 3. februar 2005 13:52 -0800 Peter Constable
><petercon@microsoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > References:
> > > http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm
> > > http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/khk.htm (Cyrillic script)
> > > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-cyrillic.htm
>(Cyrillic
> > > script)
> > > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-traditional.htm
> > > (Mongolian script)
> >
> > The references for mn-Mong are:
> >
> > References:
> > http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm
> > http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/khk.htm (Cyrillic script)
> > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-cyrillic.htm (Cyrillic
> > script)
> > http://www.language-museum.com/m/mongolian-halh-traditional.htm
> > (Mongolian script)
> >
> > This appears to be the exact same set as those given for mn-Mong-CN,
>and
> > are thus unlikely to give any guidance on the difference between
>mn-Mong
> > (no country code) and mn-Mong-CN (with country code).
> >
> > I recommend that this second registration be rejected as "insufficient
> > documentation".
> >
> >                        Harald
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages