Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Fri Jan 26 16:50:31 CET 2007
CE Whitehead wrote:
> But it is up to IETF! to you all!
Terminology nit: "The IETF" is directly only responsible for RFCs
passing an IETF last call (including all BCPs). BCP 47 about the
registry, and another BCP about the procedure to select their area
directors (= the IESG, they appoint the reviewer and handle appeals).
Sometimes it makes me very nervous if folks claim that it's the fault
of "the IETF" if some dubious RFCs were published, and there was never
any IETF last call. Maybe it's the fault of the IETF if their appeal
procedure wasn't good enough to fix it, but I digress.
For your issue at hand, the longest description in the "4645bis" I-D:
Minnan, Hokkien, Amoy, Taiwanese, Southern Min, Southern Fujian, Hoklo, Southern Fukien, Ho-lo
94 characters. In essence I agree with Addison, short and sweet
descriptions are better than long and convoluted descriptions, and
if that's not clear enough you can put anything else in a comment.
For "Moon" we're forced to copy the redundant descriptions as is,
for variants we're free to beautify it. Add TINW as needed... :-)
> But no one liked using the century!!
IIRC some didn't like the century "encoded" in the variant subtag,
in a comment or description it's not the same issue.
More information about the Ietf-languages