Re: [Ltru] Last open item

Hi -

> From: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Last open item
>
> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
> 
> > Disagree.  The current procedure would require us to add a "deprecated"
> > to the newly deprecated tag.  Since the old (new) tag is already in
> > the registry, and means the same thing, no further action is needed.
> 
> Then we wind up with both the original tag and its temporary replacement
> marked deprecated.  That's undesirable.

It would merely reflect what had happened in the source standards.

> > That is precisely why the original RFC 4646 text is better.  If followed
> > carefully, MM would have a Preferred-value of BU, and the canonical
> > form would never have changed.
> 
> Unfortunately, the BU->MM change was grandfathered in, so MM is the
> canonical value at present.  So if MM were to be deprecated by ISO in
> favor of BU, we wind up with Deprecated fields for both tags, making it
> decidedly unclear which the canonical form is.

No, if the Preferred-Value in BU refers to MM, then the logical thing to
do is to *not* add a preferred-value to MM if it is ever deprecated in
favor of something that would, for purposes of language tagging,
identify the same thing. 

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru