New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
ned.freed at mrochek.com
ned.freed at mrochek.com
Sun Dec 19 00:40:58 CET 2004
> > I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
> > total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
> Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
> some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
> on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
> charter.
This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents for four weeks
rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this may well mean
the document is in some sense "less done".
So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long language tags, now
that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add a max length
restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do.
> > However, we
> > got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any previously valid
> > RFC3066 tag be invalid
> Entirely appropriate. And the proposed draft would
> invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language
> tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use.
> > and any length restriction would do that.
> If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use
> tags from an explicit limit.
I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus.
Ned
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list