Responses on 3066bis comments

Doug Ewell dewell at
Mon Jul 12 09:17:51 CEST 2004

Quoting from Mark's page
("Responses on 3066bis comments"):

> Comment:
> Setting the cutoff point for RFC 3066bis to 1995, before the
> ramifications of certain code list changes were fully understood and
> before modern stability policies were in effect, seems inappropriate.
> Response:
> These are good points; I haven't had a chance to consult with
> Addision, but we should change the date to be later.

Very good news.  That would at least get rid of the goofiness of
preferring ZR over CD.

> Comment:
> A few paragraphs later, the draft says that a request to add "de" to
> the language range for the subtag "nedis" WOULD be rejected (emphasis
> mine) because it would change the meaning of "nedis."  Wouldn't this
> be up to the reviewer on a case-by-case basis?  What if there really
> were such a thing as a Natisone dialect of German?  Would this affect
> my ability to write "de-nedis" in any case?
> Response:
> I agree. We should allow additions of languages to the "intended for
> use" field.

I hasten to add that in the originally stated case, if the subtag
"nedis" of "de-nedis" really does mean something different from that of
"sl-nedis", that IS abuse of the mechanism and should not be accepted.
This is where the linguistic expertise of the Reviewer is invaluable.

> Comment:
> Appendix C speaks of tags being "marked as 'superseded' by this
> document."  I searched through the description of the IANA registry in
> Section 3.2 and couldn't find any provision for marking tags in this
> way.  How would this be done?
> Response:
> We'll have to look at this more carefully.

Let me know, please.  I am not comfortable with my interpretation
(adding a bunch of comments) and it is generating lots of flamage.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list