IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 22 May 2008 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4C93A69E5; Thu, 22 May 2008 05:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949A73A69E5 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 05:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e15J7BFkpFpJ for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2029D28C154 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2008 05:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 7998A32E75; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:08:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DCD0C992F; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:06:32 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <20080522120632.GA23587@sources.org>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0208357824=="
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:26:34AM -0700,
 Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote 
 a message of 43 lines which said:

> We've discussed this quite enough.  About 600 messages have been
> posted this month on this list, mostly on this topic.

I fully agree.

> Q1: The current draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-14.txt)
>     does away with the "extlang" production. Possible responses: (pick ONE)

>         B - I can live with this.

Rationale: I have a small preference *against* extlangs (see
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg10362.html> for
a good rationale) but I feel that one can write a very convincing
argument *for* or *against* extlangs. This is a case where we are
right on the border.

> Q2: We could go back to using "extlang" in the grammar, requiring its
>     use for representing "encompassed" languages that are being added.
>     Possible responses:  (pick ONE)

>         C - I would object to this.

Rationale: To me, it has already been discussed and settled. I find
unwise to reopen it.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email