Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Doug Ewell" <> Tue, 12 July 2011 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7866421F8E29 for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p8t-Fo2tN7bF for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id A7D0621F8E0B for <>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:16:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15786 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2011 17:16:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) ( by with SMTP; 12 Jul 2011 17:16:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 3115 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jul 2011 17:16:14 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.08
Message-Id: <>
From: "Doug Ewell" <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:16:13 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:16:20 -0000

Mark Davis 🍹 <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

> Note to Doug: The CLDR committee had agreed to move the descriptions into the bcp47 files, such as Yoshito has the action to do that, and was able to accelerate it. So please take a look if you have the time.

This is excellent.  Adding the descriptions to the bcp47 files reduces
or eliminates the need for BCP 47 users (English-speaking ones, anyway)
to drag in additional CLDR files and makes them much more like a
registry.  Users who want the descriptions in other languages, say
French, can still access "fr.xml" as before.

The changes in Section 2.6 to add transparency to the process, and in
Section 2.7 to specify more about the structure of the data, are also
big improvements.  You can see how much better this is for the user than
"The data and specification will be available by the time this internet
draft has been approved," though that sentence is still in place.  I
hope future changes to -u- data also follow this transparent process,
even though 6067 doesn't require it.

(Note that you'll want to spell-check "discription.")

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­