Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050107022945.0d07d730@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:44:33 +0100
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>,
	John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050106202833.GF16300@skunk.reutershealth.com>
References: <p06100518bdff3f2457fd@[17.219.157.83]>
	<01LJ76JN32S400005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<20050104180446.GC4957@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<01LJ7XJKUFD000005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<20050105140146.GK16300@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<01LJ8HHGXAUQ00005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<20050105222616.GV4957@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<01LJ9SVOA42I00005R@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<B4B14144B7F885E918F5CA8D@scan.jck.com>
	<20050106202833.GF16300@skunk.reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
	x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40C4E61
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org, ned.freed@mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications,
 "stability", and extensions
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

Dear John,
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft "_impose_" something ! It 
therefore do not report on an existing practice.
thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft even "_limits_" the 
current practice !
thank you to explain that the decision of the user is replaced by an 
a-priori obligation .. resulting from a decision of a member of this list.

Technically, these remarks are however without incidence on John Klenin's 
remark: a limitation is only a (negative) extension. I support _every_ 
position of John Klensin today (except that the IANA registrations should 
be transfered to IANA now which would set-up a global procedure equal to 
all, to address the possible discrepancies between the RFC 3066 and the 
draft). This would permit an acceptance by the IESG. Otherwise such an 
acceptance is unadvisable.
jfc

At 21:28 06/01/2005, John Cowan wrote:
>John C Klensin scripsit:
> >    Content-language: <3066-tag>
> >    X-Extended-Content-language: <new-tag>
>
>This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the draft does
>compared to what RFC 3066 does.  It imposes *more* restraints on language
>tags, not fewer.  The RFC 3066 language tag registration process can
>register tags with almost unpredictable meaning once one gets past the
>first subtag.  The draft *limits* the possible tags to a small subset,
>and tightens up the allowable semantics.  It allows no tag to be used
>that was not already registerable under RFC 3066.
>
>In RFC 3066, it is only a heuristic (or examination of the IANA registry,
>which is not machine-parseable) that tells the meaning of the second
>subtag the existing registered tag sr-Latn.  In the draft, its meaning
>is unambiguously specified a priori.
>
>--
>John Cowan  <jcowan@reutershealth.com>  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>         Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
>                 --Albert Einstein
>_______________________________________________
>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