Fixing the lost el-Latn
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Sun Mar 26 01:01:20 CET 2006
Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos dot be> wrote:
> Of course, if the old registry is fixed and the new is not, this
> would kind of invalidate the sections of RFC3066bis that deal with the
> initial contents of the registry (e.g. 2.2.8 and 3.3). Personally, I
> would think that this should be addressed as well. However, if "those
> in the driving seat" can live with that, so can I. As you say, it's
> just docu.
The relevant passage in Section 3.3 is this:
"Note: The redundant and grandfathered entries together are the complete
list of tags registered under [RFC3066]. The redundant tags are those
that can now be formed using the subtags defined in the registry
together with the rules of Section 2.2. The grandfathered entries
include those that can never be legal under those same provisions."
Assuming that IANA does add "el-Latn" to the old Tag Registry, the
question for the new Subtag Registry is whether the passage above refers
to:
(a) the complete list of tags approved for registration under RFC 3066,
including those not yet included in the registry, OR
(b) the complete list of tags registered under RFC 3066, as indicated by
their presence in the registry at the time of approval of RFC 3066bis.
I think it is safe to assume that everyone at the time thought (a) and
(b) would be identical, and there would be no such thing as an approved
registration that was not in the registry.
It might be instructive to keep the timeline of events in mind:
Aug 23 Start of IESG Last Call for draft-registry and draft-initial
Sep 06 End of IESG Last Call for draft-registry and draft-initial
Sep 13 Luc submits RFC 3066 registration form for el-Latn
Sep 28 Reviewer approves el-Latn and sends notice to IANA
Nov 14 Draft-registry and draft-initial approved by IESG
Perhaps this is something that IETF and IESG need to rule on.
--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list