Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Sun, 28 August 2005 20:30 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E9TnX-0003Px-Gm; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:30:35 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E9TnV-0003Pn-GB for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:30:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10166 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E9Toe-0006HB-Rk for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:31:47 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1E9Tm1-0006dw-SV for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:29:02 +0200
Received: from c-134-89-8.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.134.89.8]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:29:01 +0200
Received: from nobody by c-134-89-8.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:29:01 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:25:31 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <43121DBB.2423@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <4amb37$ak3l4l@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> <200508281015.01096@mail.blilly.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-134-89-8.hh.dial.de.ignite.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Bruce Lilly wrote: > While there is some mention of this issue in the document > under discussion, its treatment and resolving the underlying > issue in a manner that would minimize the problems are > lacking. That's a last call, if you have better ideas than those in the draft speak up. Your Content-Script idea is good, but won't help e.g. in encoded words (2047+2231). We definitely tried to minimize especially this problem. This is a ready-for-Bruce's-review draft as far as I can judge this, but for obvious reasons only you can really judge it. ;-) > Addressing the language range issue is not a WG work item > and, unfortunately, the algorithm issue is scheduled to be a > later work item than the registry issue. Only my personal view of course, but the matching draft offers a syntactical form for ranges, and the Suppress-Script in the registry provides for backwards compatibility where possible. > it is essential that such negotiation issues be considered > carefully before specifying the format of tags. > Unfortunately, that has not been done IBTD, we considered the script issues. Anything else is as good or bad as it is with 3066 - some minor problems fixed of course, if ISO 3166-1 pulls another CS 3066bis will handle it better than 3066 (no potential worldwide retagging confusion). > the WG product lacks the "particular care" expected of BCP > documents (RFC 2026). IBTD as far as scripts are concerned. > it appears that management of WG participant conduct has been > rather lax IBTD, the WG Chairs and the responsible AD did a very good job. > as it stands, the document cannot be evaluated for soundness > of the tag syntax design in the absence of a specification > that addresses negotiation issues (in a backwards-compatible > manner with the existing negotiation mechanisms (viz. MIME > Content- and Accept- fields and feature/filter negotiation). IBTD, see above. Your idea to split tag and registry syntax from all procedural aspects of tag registration is possible, but you get the same effect by "ignore the procedural stuff in chapter 3" (= about 14 of the 60 pages in the draft). > Revision to move the syntax specification to a separate > document, as mentioned above, would permit evaluation of the > registration procedures per se You can also read chapter 3 per se, the mentioned 14 pages plus 3.1 as introduction (5 pages, format of the registry). I'm not violently against splitting the document, but it's IMHO unnecessary. Bye, Frank (also posted on the LTRU list) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Scott Hollenbeck
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… David Hopwood
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Scott Hollenbeck
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Scott Hollenbeck
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Bill Fenner
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… David Hopwood
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Peter Constable
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Peter Constable
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Peter Constable
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Peter Constable
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Peter Constable
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Doug Ewell
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Doug Ewell
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Ned Freed
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying L… Mark Davis
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track… Bruce Lilly
- Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' t… Frank Ellermann
- Re: Is it necessary to go through Standards Track… Brian E Carpenter