Re: [Ltru] More on combination type/scope field

I agree in general with Addison, about not loading down the repository with
information that can be found elsewhere (especially where that information
may change over time).
However, I agree with John that PrivateUse codes are special in terms of
architecture of LTRU, are called out in the spec, and should be
distinguished by more than just a Description. I'm not sure about whether
the Collections should qualify, since I don't think we don't have any part
of LTRU, either the spec or usage, that depends on whether a code is a
Collection or not.
Mark

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
>
> > > This is all information direct from 639-3, so it's in our remit.
> >
> > Yes, but I still don't think we should mirror it. We would have to
> > mirror the explanations for the values in the RFC, track changes to the
> > values, and otherwise encumber ourselves with various maintenance and
> > explanatory details. The less we do in the registry by fiat, the more
> > flexible we will be.
>
> Fair enough.  Well, we do talk about language collections in the draft,
> and the private use codes are currently marked with a "Description:"
> field only (plus having special magic syntax), so how about abandoning
> ISO 639 type and having a minimalistic Scope field with "Collection"
> and "Private use" field values?
>
> --
> Newbies always ask:                             John Cowan
>  "Elements or attributes?                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Which will serve me best?"                      cowan@ccil.org
>  Those who know roar like lions;
>  Wise hackers smile like tigers.                   --a tanka, or extended
> haiku
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
Mark