Principles of Operation (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REQUEST FORM,
dewell at roadrunner.com
Wed Jan 23 16:36:23 CET 2008
Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
>> it's really not problematic in any technical way.
> That you are confident that "sxu" won't result in a collision
> later isn't good enough to add "sxu" to the 4646 registry now.
I agree with Frank on this. It is problematic in a technical way. 4646
says it may not be done, and the latest round of changes to 639-3 shows
there is still considerable churn in that standard.
Let's decide whether the correct prefix language is "sxu" instead of
"de" (I think it's rather clear that it is), and if so, let's wait until
4646bis is approved. The LTRU chairs just reset the milestone for IETF
Last Call for 4646bis to March 2008, so at least someone believes this
will not be too long a wait.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages