[Ltru] Re: Pointers from registry to documentation
addison at yahoo-inc.com
Wed Jun 28 19:07:04 CEST 2006
> Around August, someone apparently
> proposed adding a
> file-level comment,
That would be me.
Lack of comments in the file is not fatal. For example, the IANA "numbers" page does point to the RFC. Presumably anyone reading the registry will be doing so for a reason. But I agree that in-file comments would be useful, especially as pointers to BCP 47.
However, my sense is that file-level comments will not be added during an RFC 3066ter effort, in an effort to do as little as possible to the file format. It might be possible to ease the restriction on the File-Date so that it can contain Comments fields. Most record-jar processors are already capable of handling multiple field records anyway...
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell at adelphia.net]
> Sent: mercredi 28 juin 2006 09:31
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Pointers from registry to documentation
> Richard Ishida <ishida at w3 dot org> wrote:
> > I have been given an action by the W3C Architecture Domain
> to request
> > that the language subtag registry at
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry contain a
> > pointer to the document that explains what the field names mean.
> > Would it be possible to include a comment at the top of the
> > containing the URI of the spec?
> Early "planning" versions of the Registry were in a
> vertical-bar-delimited format, not record-jar, and did
> contain a header
> comment explaining the nature of the file and describing the fields.
> When we switched to record-jar in April 2005, there was no
> provision for
> a file-level comment, only the "Comments:" fields that applies to
> individual records. Around August, someone apparently
> proposed adding a
> file-level comment, but there was little support at the time
> for adding
> this. I can't find the exact thread at the moment.
> I think the general feeling was that the RFC should point to the
> Registry, not necessarily the other way around.
> The LTRU Working Group could choose to reopen this topic at
> the time it
> revises RFC 3066bis to incorporate ISO 639-3-based subtags.
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
More information about the Ietf-languages