Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Thu, 07 July 2011 21:00 UTC
Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B08939E119 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gt6xy3oPjrrI for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:00:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.8
Received: from pechora7.dc.icann.org (pechora7.icann.org [192.0.46.73]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85F9339E03C for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:00:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpoutwbe01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.112]) by pechora7.dc.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id p67L0sdD002740 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 17:01:14 -0400
Received: (qmail 31811 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2011 21:00:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.133) by smtpoutwbe01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 7 Jul 2011 21:00:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 9682 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jul 2011 21:00:48 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.190
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.08
Message-Id: <20110707140047.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.487d506b5f.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:00:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Greylist: Sender DNS name whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (pechora7.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.73]); Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:01:14 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 21:00:15 -0000
Pete Resnick <presnick at qualcomm dot com> wrote: > Publication of this document was requested and we decided that it needed > to get some review on ltru and ietf-languages. Unfortunately, it was only today that the discussion expanded to ietf-languages. I did see it on LTRU, but I'm sure quite a few regular ietf-languages participants are no longer on that list, since the WG has been closed for 19 months now. I'm concerned that all of the procedures for assigning field values adopted in RFC 6067 are being taken as a precedent for this draft as well. The assignments are solely up to the CLDR committee, and there is no public announcement or notification that a change has been made or why a request was rejected. It could be argued that the -u- mechanism was really only meant for CLDR-type usage; no such argument can be made for the -t- mechanism. With CLDR 2.0 a new 'calendar' value was added, 'iso8601', and I can't find any publicly available information about the process by which it was added, nor about which of the numerous ISO 8601 formats might or might not be indicated by such an extension value. Under the present draft, new releases of CLDR might again contain silent changes to the "registry" of allowable values. I can't find any indication of where within CLDR the list of allowable values will be located. Saying they're in core.zip is almost useless. Saying they're in common/bcp47 is better, but I'd still like to know what file name, what XML element, etc. An example would help. I see in Section 2.1 that the CLDR committee has already approved the mechanism and we'll be able to see it by the time the draft is approved, which does not help. Section 2.5, item b says I can write any 4-, 6-, or 8-digit subtag and have that interpreted as a date. I don't know, as a developer, whether I'm supposed to validate those in any way -- rejecting, say, '20110229' as impossible, or '2012' as futuristic. I'm not even sure what to do, with regard to the May 1, 2011 revision of BGN used as an example, whether to treat '2011' and '201105' and '20110501' as synonyms for matching purposes, or whether any is more valid than the others, since the draft only says users SHOULD use the short form. I know this draft will be approved, and I'm hopeful that some of these concerns will be addressed before it does. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
- Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- RE: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Michael Everson
- Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Pete Resnick
- Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Doug Ewell
- RE: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Mark Davis ☕
- Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Kristen Eisenberg
- RE: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Peter Constable
- Re: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext Martin J. Dürst