Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> As a technical contributor...
> (1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be 
> chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text.  Unless 
> operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously 
> broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.

Of course any "real" updating activity would entail necessary changes to 
the existing text.  I'm not talking about that when I say "tweaking." 
I'm talking about the endless lily-gilding, adding more and more caveats 
and examples for existing edge cases and inserting new sections to cover 
the most extreme corner cases, almost as if, as you put it, the BCP were 
to be implemented by automatons instead of breathing humans.

> As co-chair...
> (2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a 
> rechartering of the WG that you *would* support?

I wouldn't mind seeing supporters of ISO 639-6 put together a serious 
proposal that maintains compatibility with BCP 47 matching logic, keeps 
duplicate-tag redundancy to a minimum, AND adds value.  I'm not sure it 
can be done, and I won't support adding 639-6 if it can't be, but I 
think it deserves a chance in the marketplace of ideas.  So far we 
haven't seen any proposal that accomplishes all three goals.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ