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

"Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org> Fri, 13 July 2007 19:10 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 1I9QWr-0001bq-Sa; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:10:13 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I9QWq-0001bf-T0 for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:10:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9QWq-0001bS-HO for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:10:12 -0400
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I9QWl-0003rE-Lq for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:10:12 -0400
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so819027waf for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:10:06 -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:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ZpQl8+/oK7uLjUoOVPkEePr0O7aGpFfBUK80BGtOjKy1bP2B0bXwu/4R5G/rTPBn5BvQyotYwV5NTf+DAhCgEPz4GIPivizlajax/aLD5+unpdRpiEQSXu19N8IWktBpT2vURBFxOS8jIWiTvP6zBpFvJb05sht4lGRz/cZx+fo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=RozpV5VH7aUD9lKvZ34+LPk8nJWzLK2Kx34h8q5KAlNTmAvOp2TUqtNjybqVi7PcHHLFfBMP2oCNls9NNaZEV6fHEJu4nuo/CopwxOYSldFvpx0P08w8dtbbM74LrtDaiysyDAKm3tRjK9JuFfpWamseKfuHtmh4LcJZmCNqdBo=
Received: by 10.114.190.6 with SMTP id n6mr1933228waf.1184353806452; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.196.12 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <30b660a20707131210n7dccbce8sbee7a31fe7b69ab1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:10:06 -0700
From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
To: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.
In-Reply-To: <4697CB95.2010501@yahoo-inc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30b660a20707011618m67fe32e6n73e81f8d3bddd69d@mail.gmail.com> <4697CB95.2010501@yahoo-inc.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9f3fd1dca2eb7d21
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
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="===============0736243941=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

±1

(that is, I'm fine leaving it the way it is, but wouldn't object to
changing either)

On 7/13/07, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> While catching up on my backlog I notice the following note from Mark.
>
> I would note that we already have a shorter equivalent of this text at
> the end of 3.1.2, where it says:
>
> --
> Future versions of this document might add additional fields to the
> registry, so implementations SHOULD ignore fields found in the registry
> that are not defined in this document.
> --
>
> This text was apparently added back in draft-02. Any reason to edit it
> some more?
>
> Addison
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > 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>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
> --
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
>
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
>


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