Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Doug Ewell" <> Thu, 21 July 2011 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5458421F87E2 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.669
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FjJCoWfMWDyu for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id A530121F87C7 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13341 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2011 18:49:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ( by with SMTP; 21 Jul 2011 18:49:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 3513 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jul 2011 18:49:25 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.13
Message-Id: <>
From: "Doug Ewell" <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:49:24 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:49:27 -0000

Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> I agree in principle with what you say. However, my impression is that
> the -u extension, by its name and nature, was much more a Unicode/CLDR
> only thing than the -t extension. In particular, my guess is that
> there might be quite a bit more interest for the -t extension than for
> the -u extension from academic and related communities...
> That's why I tend to push back on general arguments of the form "it
> worked for -u, it'll work for -t". I may be convinced by specifics.

I suspect there are quite a few people who ignored the 'u' draft when it
was proposed, believing it was relevant only to Unicode and/or CLDR
insiders, not realizing that future extension drafts would cite it as a
precedent for process and registry structure.

I hasten to add that changes to the 't' draft as of build 4 have
mitigated many of my original concerns.

One issue that I am still dissatisfied with is "The data and
specification will be available by the time this internet draft has been
approved" in sections 2.1 and 2.7.  I'd want to see examples in the
draft that are expected to match at least some of the eventual data.

As a really minor and gratuitous nitpick, "June 23th, 2011" in Section
2.5 should be corrected to "23" or "23d" or "23rd".  The dates in this
paragraph don't follow a formal enough style IMHO; English speakers do
say "June eleventh" but most style guides prefer cardinals over ordinals
in written dates.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­