Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.

While catching up on my backlog I notice the following note from Mark.

I would note that we already have a shorter equivalent of this text at 
the end of 3.1.2, where it says:

--
Future versions of this document might add additional fields to the 
registry, so implementations SHOULD ignore fields found in the registry 
that are not defined in this document.
--

This text was apparently added back in draft-02. Any reason to edit it 
some more?

Addison

Mark Davis wrote:
> Doug noted the following in his email on UTF-8 (on which topic I agree with
> him, btw).
> 
>> Addison is correct; any structural change to the Registry will break RFC
> 4646-conformant processors.  This is true not only for UTF-8, but also for
> new fields such as "Macrolanguage" or "Modified."  (Section 3.1 says the
> Type "MUST" be one of the seven currently defined values.)
> 
> I suggest that we add language to 4646bis noting this, with the following
> suggested text.
> 
> Add to the end of 3.1.2.  Record Definitions:
> 
> Future versions of the language subtag registry may add more fields.
> Processors of the registry that are not intended to be updated with each
> successive version of BCP 47 and thus need to be compatible with future
> versions of the registry, SHOULD be written so as to ignore additional
> fields.
> <http://wiki/Main/IIIObjectives>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

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