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

John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com
Sat Aug 28 17:06:00 CEST 2004

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

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list