Re: [Ltru] RE: ISO 639-2 decision: "mis"

[[e-mail]]

Randy writes:

> As such, it would no longer support BCP 47.
> At a minimum, I would argue that a protocol that claims to support BCP 
47
> must be able to carry all valid tags, and should probably be able to 
carry
> all well-formed tags.  Anything less is merely "based on" BCP 47.

> If someone decides a subset of BCP 47 is appropriate to their needs,
> that is fine, just as long as they don't claim to sully support BCP 47.

There's a difference between "fully supporting" BCP 47 and being compliant 
with BCP 47. I don't think there's any organization that has a real-life 
use for fully supporting BCP 47. These codes are frequently used in 
databases; if a developer limits the size of that field such that the most 
granular private use tag imaginable does not fit the space allocated, you 
consider that to an implementation "based on" BCP 47 even if all tags in 
the system are valid?

I don't think what you suggest is a useful or realistic way of looking at 
this. If I only need en, fr, de, and it, I think that's fully compliant 
with BCP 47. Must I support gsw-Hant-BV-x-chicago-mwbstr14-spoken to claim 
to be aligned with BCP 47? 

Regards,

Karen Broome

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru