RE: [Ltru] Re: The LTRU initialization document

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Frank Ellermann
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:05 AM
> To: ltru@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: The LTRU initialization document
> 
> 
> John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> > In a situation like this, if the community leaves the IESG to
> > make this sort of decision without significant community
> > input, then the community deserves whatever the IESG does,
> > including coin-tossing.   If people care, they should say so
> > clearly enough that the IESG's role is to interpret community
> > input, not to make things up because no one (besides some
> > soreheads like me) is saying anything.
> 
> It's not that nobody but you said anything about it, in fact
> it's the only case of a potential "rough consensus" not covered
> by a half dozen LTRU tickets.
> 
> What Addison said is IMHO correct, 3066bis must replace 3066,
> they can't coexist.  One of the main design goals was backwards
> compatiility.  Any solution designed to exist in parallel with
> 3066 would be completely different, because it's not forced to
> be backwards compatible.  For starters there won't be a kludge
> like "Suppress-Script" in that hypothetical solution.
> 

Just for the record.  

Suppress-Script is NOT a kludge.  It is the only basis on which 
RFC3066bis is acceptable at all to the wider community.

And there is no such thing as a possibility that RFC3066 and
RFC3066bis could exist in parallel.  All XML applications and
all web services applications currently depend on RFC3066 for 
the syntax and semantics of 'language tags'.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf