New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Addison Phillips [wM]
aphillips at webmethods.com
Sun Dec 19 02:33:11 CET 2004
That's "as an editorial issue and not a technical issue".
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
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 P. Phillips
> Director, Globalization Architecture
> Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
> 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
More information about the Ietf-languages