New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Bruce Lilly
blilly at erols.com
Mon Dec 13 02:59:45 CET 2004
> Date: 2004-12-12 17:34
> From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no, ietf at ietf.org
> CC: ietf at ietf.org
>
> > Are you claiming that
> >
> > sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
>
> > is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
> > proposal?
>
> Clearly not. But
>
> x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
So what? A private-use tag has to be agreed to by the communicating
parties; in this case they'll find that such an unwieldy tag is
unusable in an encoded-word and will have to agree to use something
more manageable. That's a problem for the parties involved and
nobody else, since it doesn't affect the rest of us. That's a
different matter from a public tag that everybody is expected to
be able to use.
> is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current
> RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as
>
> sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
>
> (although of course this particular combination would certainly never get
> in).
I agree that that would never be registered -- because of the
review process which is part of RFC 3066. But the draft under
discussion has no mechanism to prevent it, unlike 3066.
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list