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

Kent Karlsson <> Fri, 08 July 2011 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8770C21F88AC for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9q-RTQWqhSLF for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B393E21F88A6 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 14:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by (8.5.133) (authenticated as u05202586) id 4DEDBD7B00A35766; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 23:32:35 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 23:32:29 +0200
From: Kent Karlsson <>
To: Doug Ewell <>, Debbie Garside <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
Thread-Index: Acw9tomsIiP9xp9jqkaXNQ0skM6Z5Q==
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Ltru] 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: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:32:48 -0000

Den 2011-07-08 18:38, skrev "Doug Ewell" <>rg>:

> I just noticed that RFC 5646, Section 2.2.6 ("Extension Subtags"), item
> says, "Note that there might not be a registry of these subtags."  I

The extension subtags may be defined (by listing them) only in the RFC
defining the extension. Or, as in the current draft, refer (in part) to
*another* registry; in the case of the current draft: the IANA language
subtag registry; ok, that is a registry, but not specifically for that

Den 2011-07-07 23:00, skrev "Doug Ewell" <>rg>:

> I can't find any indication of where within CLDR the list of allowable
> will be located.  Saying they're in is almost useless. 
> they're in common/bcp47 is better, but I'd still like to know

I agree that "URL:"quot;,
referring to a rather larger zip-file, containing *lots* of other stuff,
*unrelated* to the registry (for the "mechanisms" part) for this extension,
is highly unsatisfactory. It shouldn't be a zip-file (nor any other kind of
non-plain-text file; though a directory with plain text files would be ok),
and it should be a URL to *only* the registry for the extension.

    /Kent K