dewell at roadrunner.com
Wed Oct 3 05:22:32 CEST 2007
Mark Davis wrote:
> I did not appear to make myself clear. Let me try again.
> Roles. LTRU is responsible for developing the rules for registration.
> This group is responsible for applying the rules. So rule development
> goes in LTRU, not here.
> Separate issue. Does LTRU understand enough about the issues that
> arise here to make reasonable rules? Answer: yes, because there is a
> large overlap, and so a large number of people there have seen and
> understand the issues at hand.
I did understand this. I think the disconnect comes from the fact that
I'm not talking about developing *rules* for registering
Suppress-Script -- those are already covered in the RFC -- but
*operational guidelines* that explain and guide this group's criteria
for applying the rules.
For instance, the rules written into RFC 4646 by LTRU state that
Suppress-Script "indicates a script used to write the overwhelming
majority of documents for the given language" (Section 3.1).
Operational guidelines might provide a somewhat more specific
interpretation of "overwhelming" and should give examples of sufficient
and insufficient evidence -- as an example, a single Wikipedia article
has been determined not to be sufficient evidence.
Companies that adhere to an ISO 9000 quality system have "standard
operating procedures" and "work desk instructions." Those are somewhat
analogous to the difference between rules and operational guidelines
that I'm trying to draw.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages