Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Wed, 19 August 2009 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <cowan@ccil.org>
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 04ECA3A6834 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.890, 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 sIfuwVkGSKNV for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A203A677D for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:07:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1Mdnh3-00032a-CK; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:21 -0400
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <20090819160721.GB23581@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:07:18 -0000

Harald Alvestrand scripsit:

> At the time, it seemed obvious to me that references to a 
> standards-track specification were intended to be "this one or any 
> version that obsoletes it"; it was only later that I discovered that 
> there could be multiple differences of opinion on this even in cases 
> that seemed obvious to me.

Well, yes, except that BCP 47 isn't standards-track.

> If YAM decides that it's ready to go to Standard status, I really don't 
> see any need except for formalism and nitpicking to revise the document 
> at all.

IMHO, the syntax of Content-Language should be tightened to require proper
4646/4646bis language tag syntax, and the laxer syntaxes should be moved to
obs-* productions.


-- 
John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Original line from The Warrior's Apprentice by Lois McMaster Bujold:
"Only on Barrayar would pulling a loaded needler start a stampede toward one."
English-to-Russian-to-English mangling thereof: "Only on Barrayar you risk to
lose support instead of finding it when you threat with the charged weapon."