A possible move towards consensus? (1)

Peter_Constable at sil.org Peter_Constable at sil.org
Sat May 24 11:20:39 CEST 2003

John Clews wrote on 05/24/2003 03:46:06 AM:

> What about splitting the full list of basic codes registrations into
> two or three different parts? ...

I don't have any particular objections -- I've long contended that the
limited documentation on denotation and intended usage is a weak spot. This
would raise some practical issues, though:

- The registrations are currently maintained as a collection of text files
in a folder on a server, and file systems don't give you control to make
agents viewing the directory content group the files into different parts
and have annotation marks. This would have to be done in a single file
documenting the total list of registrations. If it is needed to keep each
registration in its individual file as well, then this
cross-reference/annotation info would have to be duplicated into those
individual files. This would add to the workload of the Reviewer.

- Who provides all the additional documentation you are suggesting? I
suppose the requester, though the form specified in the RFC does not
include this extra info, and I can easily imagine someone with a legitimate
need making a request and being able to provide the details that are
currently asked for, but not understanding subtleties of implementation
issues well enough to provide the additional info you are suggesting. I
think it would require a commitment from the members of the list to being
willing to work on providing this additional info when a request was made
with an understanding that it has to be done in a timely manner so as not
to unfairly stall a valid request, and that there be a time limit: if this
extra info isn't forthcoming, that should not hold up the request.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list