Re: [Ltru] Re: Solving the UTF-8 problem

"Doug Ewell" <> Mon, 09 July 2007 02:31 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7j2H-00089u-62; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:31:37 -0400
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I7j2F-00089m-QN for; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:31:35 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7j2F-00089d-F7 for; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:31:35 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I7j2F-0001PL-3n for; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:31:35 -0400
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2131-123-105-20051025) with SMTP id <>; Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:30:45 -0400
Message-ID: <000901c7c1d1$27180640$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <>
To: LTRU Working Group <>
References: <007401c7c0c4$74d1ad90$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81> <> <008701c7c106$31f2d1b0$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81> <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Solving the UTF-8 problem
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:30:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> A beta period for the registry is critical for stabilized fields. 
> However, I note that IANA wouldn't ever change a record sent by the 
> LSR (we require whole records to be sent) and we introduced a 
> "beta-period" for the final record in 4646bis. An additional beta for 
> the registry seems like gilding the lily.

I agree that we want to avoid adding excessive process to our interface 
with IANA.  Some other RFCs that specify IANA registries spend much less 
time describing the exact steps than we do.

To play devil's advocate, however, there were four IANA-originated 
errors in the LSR during 2006, and I'm sure the rest of us agree with 
Mark that we want to avoid this.

It might be noted that the jv/jw problem in ISO 639 went unnoticed for 
several years, greatly increasing the likelihood that implementers would 
use the wrong code element.  Right now there are quite a few people 
watching the updates to the LSR, which should prevent any errors from 
lingering for long.  But there's no way to guarantee that this situation 
will continue.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

Ltru mailing list