Here's what I have to say aboutthat?

[Addison Phillips [wM]]

Michael Everson wrote:
 > At 06:23 -0500 2003-05-26, Peter_Constable at sil.org wrote:
 >
 >> Michael Everson wrote on 05/26/2003 11:20:52 AM:
 >>
 >>>  >I would argue in favour of en-IE-latn rather than en-latn-IE...
 >>
 >>>  Oh joy. We don't have consensus on the syntax for these tags either.
 >>
 >> IIRC, this issue does not affect any of Mark's requests.
 >
 > My point is that we seem to be adding things that have some sort of
 > possibly-parsible syntax, and we have no policy regarding that.

What a load of tripe.

EVERY tag in the registry has a "possibly parsible syntax". I cite the 
first 11 in the list:

art-lojban   Lojban                        [Cowan]

cel-gaulish  Gaulish                       [Lilley]

de-1901      German, traditional           [Bronger]
              orthography

de-1996      German, orthography of 1996   [Bronger]

de-AT-1901   German, Austrian variant,     [Bronger]
              traditional orthography

de-AT-1996   German, Austrian variant,     [Bronger]
              orthography of 1996

de-CH-1901   German, Swiss variant,        [Bronger]
              traditional orthography

de-CH-1996   German, Swiss variant,        [Bronger]
              orthography of 1996

de-DE-1901   German, German variant,       [Bronger]
              traditional orthography

de-DE-1996   German, German variant,       [Bronger]
              orthography of 1996

en-boont     Boontling                     [Cowan]

Why every one of them can be parsed in some way! The tags are not 
formless, but contain fields, each of which conveys some meaning about 
the tag, in a hierarchical order of increasing specificity. That is the 
point.

Very clearly, Mark did not attempt to register the country variants of 
the proposed tags because of previous discussion, avoiding this issue, 
which need never be entered into in the lifetime of RFC3066.

 > and we have no policy regarding that.

Who is "we", anyway? The IETF says quite clearly that anyone who joins 
one of its mailing lists is a member ;-).

If Mark doesn't get an answer when time runs out on this set of 
proposals he ought, in my opinion, appeal to the next higher level in 
the RFC just on general principles.

Regards,

Addison

-- 
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods, Inc.

+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips at webmethods.com
-------------------------------------------
Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.

Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force
http://www.w3.org/International/ws