[Ltru] Re: Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments)

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Mon, 03 July 2006 08:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJnR-0000Ee-Gy; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:28:45 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJbD-0005tu-9d for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:16:07 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJbD-00034w-80 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:16:07 -0400
Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJSU-0008Us-41 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:07:07 -0400
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6386uoO128880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:06:57 GMT
Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6389akN092698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:09:36 +0200
Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6386uIP003471 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:56 +0200
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6386tQs003456; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:55 +0200
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-210.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.210]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:54 +0200
Message-ID: <44A8D01D.1070506@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:06:53 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
References: <000101c69c66$899ca6e0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <000101c69c66$899ca6e0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:28:44 -0400
Cc: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments)
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>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Actually the question was based on my slight misunderstanding of Elwyn's
review comments. But I take it that you're saying the WG really meant
what it wrote, which is the point.

 > ...the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with
 > in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one.

It's possible that a sentence to this effect would prevent future
readers asking themselves Elwyn's question, but I won't insist.

     Brian


Addison Phillips wrote:
> Brian Carpenter asked Mark and I privately:
> 
> --
> I'd really like to have the authors' and shepherds' comments
> on section 2.2 before casting my ballot on this. Did the WG consciously
> decide that en-*-*-*-en was valid, and distinct from
> en-*-*-en? 
> --
> 
> en-*-*-*-en is not functionally distinct from "en-*-*-en" (or en-*-en, en-en, or en-en-*, for that matter).
> 
> It is possible to construct a language range syntax that uses RFC 3066bis's syntax. In such a syntax the position and number of wildcards would be significant. However, the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one.
> 
> Addison
> 
> Addison Phillips
> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
> 
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature. 
> 
> 

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