Last call for ISO 15924-based updates

Doug Ewell doug at
Tue Mar 17 13:51:58 CET 2009

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

>> I'm hoping we can set aside philosophical differences about ISO 15924 
>> and reach an agreement on this apparently crucial "comment or no 
>> comment" decision that is holding 'Zinh' out of the Registry.
> It has a comment already:
> This subtag corresponds to an ISO 15924 code element for "Code for
> inherited script" added 2009-02-23.
> I consider this to be sufficient.

That's not a comment intended to be used as the Comments field inside 
the Registry.  That's the "Any other relevant information" field in the 
registration form, explaining why a change is being made.  It doesn't 
contain any information that wouldn't be obvious from the rest of the 
Registry entry, except for the exact date it was added to ISO 15924, 
which is not relevant to the Registry.  It's similar to this sort of 
information-free Comments field, which we have now but which I 
successfully lobbied to remove in the RFC 4646bis era:

Type: grandfathered
Tag: no-nyn
Description: Norwegian Nynorsk
Added: 1995-08-23
Preferred-Value: nn
Deprecated: 2000-02-18
Comments: replaced by ISO code nn     <-- adds nothing

> Is the full two weeks obligatory in extension? If an extension is 
> granted because "two weeks were not enough", it's not unreasonable to 
> say, "well, we're good with an answer now after a few more days". Not 
> that it matters.

Section 3.5 talks about extending the review period in two-week 
increments, and doesn't say anything about short-circuiting any of them. 
I'm not going to complain if the Reviewer chooses to end this one early, 
mainly because it is an extension and because Comments fields can always 
be added later, but to avoid the risk of appeals in the future I 
wouldn't recommend we make a habit of this.

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list