New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

Addison Phillips [wM] aphillips at webmethods.com
Sun Dec 19 02:33:11 CET 2004


Hmm...

That's "as an editorial issue and not a technical issue".

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Addison
> Phillips [wM]
> Sent: 2004年12月18日 16:49
> To: ned.freed at mrochek.com; Bruce Lilly
> Cc: ietf at ietf.org; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
> 
> 
> We (Mark and I) welcome the last call process and timelines and 
> the feedback these generate. That's the whole point of having a Last Call.
> 
> The -CS subtag issue doesn't strike me as a technical issue with 
> the draft. The draft stabilizes the meaning of subtags. There is 
> a process in the draft for setting the initial (and thus stable) 
> meaning of the -CS subtag. While it probably matters which value 
> (Czechoslovakia or Serbia and Montenegro) that is selected, it is 
> only of editorial interest to the draft itself... unless what 
> Bruce is trying to prove is that stabilizing the meaning of the 
> subtags is a Bad Idea, which I don't think is his point.
> 
> I'm willing to entertain a debate about which meaning ought to be 
> selected. But really it ought to be recognized as not an 
> editorial issue with the draft and not a technical objection.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Addison
> 
> Addison P. Phillips
> Director, Globalization Architecture
> http://www.webMethods.com
> 
> Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
> http://www.w3.org/International
> 
> Internationalization is an architecture. 
> It is not a feature.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of 
> > ned.freed at mrochek.com
> > Sent: 2004年12月18日 15:41
> > To: Bruce Lilly
> > Cc: ietf at ietf.org; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
> > 
> > 
> > > > I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
> > > > total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
> > 
> > > Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
> > > some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
> > > on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
> > > charter.
> > 
> > This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents 
> > for four weeks
> > rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this 
> > may well mean
> > the document is in some sense "less done".
> > 
> > So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long 
> > language tags, now
> > that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add 
> > a max length
> > restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do.
> > 
> > > > However, we
> > > > got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any 
> > previously valid
> > > > RFC3066 tag be invalid
> > 
> > > Entirely appropriate.  And the proposed draft would
> > > invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language
> > > tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use.
> > 
> > > > and any length restriction would do that.
> > 
> > > If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use
> > > tags from an explicit limit.
> > 
> > I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus.
> > 
> > 				Ned
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list