registry vs. extensions...

han.steenwijk at han.steenwijk at
Wed Oct 29 15:07:53 CET 2003

Addison Phillips <aphillips at> scripsit:

> > It might be worthwile to think about a way to distinguish between
> > the cases
> > where registration would be required and where it would not be.
> > What would be
> > this "general usage" which helps in qualifying for registration?
> I would say that "general usage" is when you want to use the tag
> generally,
> that is, that there is not just a small user community interested in the
> tag
> for some small or parochial purpose. That isn't very specific, is it?
> That's
> because I don't necessarily think that limiting flexibility is a good
> thing
> at the outset of a "new rfc3066 regime". I think that it would be better
> to
> have a policy of asking whether a tag is needed universally and only
> registering tags that at least approach that requirement.

As long as the "small user community" is locally based and all its members are 
known, I completely agree with you. However, once one engages in document 
interchange with unknown users, tags that are as non-opaque as possible are to 
be prefered.

> ...

> Using a mechanism such as I describe
> would
> solve your immediate problem (you could tag things with whatever depth
> of
> granularity you desire) and still be interoperable. Unregistered private
> tags are opaque in terms of their meaning, but the rfc3066 tag still has
> structure and can still to all of the things that are interesting to you
> (such as matching and searching).

Yes, please let us have this -x- feature included into RFC 3066!

Han Steenwijk

Prof. Han Steenwijk
Universita di Padova
Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Anglo-Germaniche e Slave
Sezione di Slavistica
Via Beldomandi, 1
I-35139 Padova

e-mail: han.steenwijk at
tel.: (39) 049 8278669
fax:  (39) 049 8278679

This mail sent through IMP:

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list