Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

[Shawn Steele]

FWIW, I also think “pt” makes more sense.  Requiring the regions is overly restrictive.

-Shawn

From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ??
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 9:44 AM
To: Doug Ewell
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Second correction to 'ao1990' : Prefix field - widening to 'pt'

I strongly prefer pt. As I said earlier, having the regions specified was far preferable to not having the subtags at all. And having the regions does not prevent use with the pt prefix alone.

However, it is pointless and misleading to have the regions, and so I agree with the modification.


Mark<https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org<mailto:doug at ewellic.org>> wrote:
Luc Pardon wrote:
I guess my objection is to calling these changes "corrections" when
they were at the heart of the lengthy debate we had, and the Prefix
fields that were finally registered were explicitly the ones Michael
wanted.

1. I take it that this objection does not count (is not intended as) a
"significant objection raised on the list" that would prevent the two
prefix change requests from being approved?

No, it is not meant to object formally to either of your requests. You may remember I agreed with you that all of the Portuguese variants should have had simply "Prefix: pt". Tags aren't supposed to be required to include the region simply because the content "is" Brazilian Portuguese (for example), only when it is considered important to specify that it is.

I don't know anywhere enough about Galician to comment on that request.

It *is* meant to grumble informally about two things:

a. Calling these change requests "corrections" as if the registrations just completed were in error.

b. Staying quiet during the last week or so of the review period just completed, and then immediately proposing these changes, with no notice that this was the strategy. We thought we were done.
In any case, a) the wording "correction(s)" does not appear in the
proposed forms themselves (one says "modification", the other says
"change request"),

Of course it doesn't. I know the forms pretty well by now. You had written "Below is a registration form to request [yet] another correction to the current registration of 'ao1990'" in each of your two messages.

Maybe this use of "correction" is a matter of non-native English, in which case I apologize.
and b) BCP47 explicitly allows prefix changes after registration.

Of course it does, as long as they are widening changes, which yours are. Section 3.1.8.
2. To Andrew's statement "I'd prefer to [...] allow the registration
to proceed as is before opening up the debate over the prefix once
more", Michael replied "I concur".

Given that it can hardly have escaped his (Michael's) attention that
the registration has completed, I take that to mean he has no
objection against the debate being reopened now.

Yeah, I don't know what Michael meant. Perhaps he thinks this is the right approach *now that* the initial registration has completed.

Anyway, let the Portuguese debate resume. The review periods for these two requests (individually) should go through Friday, May 29, unless there are changes that extend them.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no<mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20150516/74e26baa/attachment-0001.html>