draft-05: (mostly) editorial comments (3)

[John Cowan]

Except as noted, I agree with all of your points.

Peter Constable scripsit:

> Section 3.1, example of registry: It's not clear to me why de-1996 etc.
> are being treated as grandfathered rather than having 1996 and 1901
> added to the registry as variant subtags. Suggestion:
> 
> variant; 1901; orthographic conventions established circa 1901;
> 2004-08-27; ; de ; # introduced for German traditional orthography
> 
> variant; 1996; orthographic conventions established circa 1996;
> 2004-08-27; ; de ; # introduced for German revised orthography of 1996

I *very strongly* support this.  Indeed, perhaps in 3066ter it will make
sense to add four-digit tags as a standard form; orthographies are
changing all the time, worldwide.

> Section 3.1: "Note that this field MUST NOT be modified..." Surely SHALL
> NOT is the appropriate wording. MUST NOT suggests that users of the spec
> have an ability to make such modification. (This applies to other places
> later in section 3 as well.)

RFC 2119 defines SHALL NOT as a synonym of MUST NOT ("an absolute
prohibition"), but prefers MUST NOT.  So the distinction you are trying
to make cannot be made in this way.

-- 
Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.  Deshil Holles eamus.
Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x)
Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!  Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
  -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun"       jcowan at reutershealth.com