IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org> Sun, 01 July 2007 23:18 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I58gg-0001TP-7R; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:18:38 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I58ge-0001Je-P2 for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:18:36 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I58ge-0001JH-FQ for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:18:36 -0400
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.177]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I58gZ-0004qk-Ro for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:18:36 -0400
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so2369166waf for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=FgScCbJ3dJR/GkBKvoeSB/7sjavey5qb1wIESmUqSCvaTBUlWBHDFc+uazlX8mVxNadn+wDaz23xp4cXAMtP/gMEV39fw0Ue039RJ5nuuomSAh97NFgW5NNPV2aWl13eEgHre+amYhI/98rG+e+pklPmZKfe+1JJXB1vJPSQ7TA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=DrhZlcXgfFqxBJHekbhsFRk9j+Duy4JHPKcUU9eDNBIbOyLxZsLX9g7Xw+YwCWuaBTLF1xB8TkrHOS5iXXcoPGIJ6jabFOGfpXC+AedqtRRG8NbUtDd0qlNixt1xO/xb2ZzetZu3W6OcHgWfIrl9R5yHVn+9NX3f2xOoDDBFgps=
Received: by 10.114.178.1 with SMTP id a1mr4541017waf.1183331910191; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.192.10 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jul 2007 16:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <30b660a20707011618m67fe32e6n73e81f8d3bddd69d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:18:30 -0700
From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 672162b4f67bca1f
X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Subject: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0768083903=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

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>
-- 
Mark

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

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email