IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Thu, 22 May 2008 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4356C28C27D; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F3D28C27D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PXjFgEu72N9K for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955AA28C282 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2008 02:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.5) with ESMTP id md50008115417.msg for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2008 10:13:36 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Thu, 22 May 2008 10:13:36 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=10289e402c=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Thu, 22 May 2008 10:04:14 +0100
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: 'Randy Presuhn' <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:04:10 +0100
Message-ID: <0a6401c8bbea$cc7489b0$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
In-Reply-To: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
thread-index: Aci75eQrAP02J/8lQbS1urRtcZ2Q7gAAaZwQ
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Thu, 22 May 2008 10:13:37 +0100
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Q1 = C
Q2 = A

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 22 May 2008 09:27
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
>
> Hi -
>
> As co-chair...
>
> Later in this message I will be asking some questions.
> Please respond to this mailing list so that the co-chairs can
> decide what to instruct the editors to do regarding the
> general disposition
> (*not* detailed wordsmithing!) of the extlang question.
>
> Please respond no later than Saturday, May 24th, wherever you are.
> Please DO NOT respond to others' responses.
> If you feel compelled to include a rationale with your
> response, PLEASE keep it down to a single brief sentence, and
> don't expect anyone to respond to it.  If you want a
> conversation, start a new thread!
>
> We've discussed this quite enough.  About 600 messages have
> been posted this month on this list, mostly on this topic.
> After wading through this mass, I'm quite convinced that
> while further wordsmithing (of whatever solution we agree to)
> will be needed, the arguments for and against each of the
> approaches were made quite some time ago.
> There are conflicting considerations and analyses, and it's
> clear to me there's no perfect answer that will make everyone happy.
>
> Q1: The current draft
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-14.txt)
>     does away with the "extlang" production. Possible
> responses: (pick ONE)
>         A - I like this.
>         B - I can live with this.
>         C - I object to this.
>
> Q2: We could go back to using "extlang" in the grammar, requiring its
>     use for representing "encompassed" languages that are being added.
>     Possible responses:  (pick ONE)
>         A - I would like this.
>         B - I could live with this.
>         C - I would object to this.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email