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

yoshito_umaoka@us.ibm.com Wed, 31 August 2011 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshito_umaoka@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76BC521F8CCE for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FEyv4RDgrh21 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA2221F8C98 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (d01relay06.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.116]) by e9.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p7V313he020365 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:01:03 -0400
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay06.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p7V3ZChl1265766 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:35:12 -0400
Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p7V3ZCq2031162 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:35:12 -0400
Received: from wtfmail03.lotus.com (WTFMAIL03.lotus.com [9.32.140.19]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p7V3ZCnP031150; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:35:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_EFT-G+vL+LDUx3S29xMV5MgvoKRQkOARF+QbE25_e9nQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110823101708.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.35d98b2f35.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <CAJ2xs_F8QHqBBWb_R+JLoKYptGPOfG1PZa85d-OFYVbfs5iDNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH4e3M7UPVxFexjrSVYyXYgz3RSVyWYUtBV7xygk9h1sQr9yZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ2xs_EFT-G+vL+LDUx3S29xMV5MgvoKRQkOARF+QbE25_e9nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: E59198F0:89C56599-852578FD:00121886; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2 August 10, 2010
Message-ID: <OFE59198F0.89C56599-ON852578FD.00121886-852578FD.0013B56A@lotus.com>
From: yoshito_umaoka@us.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:35:11 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 8.5.2FP3 HF58|August 02, 2011) at 08/30/2011 11:35:13 PM, Serialize complete at 08/30/2011 11:35:13 PM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0013B569852578FD_="
Cc: ltru@ietf.org, "Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley@gmail.com>, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:33:53 -0000

Thanks for the feedback!

Updated working drafts:
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.html
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.txt
draft-davis-t-langtag-ext.xml
Mark
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


One thing which we may need clarification...

>Section 2.2 Structure
>
>d. The order of the subtags in a t extension is significant (see 
Section 2.3 (Canonicalization) Canonicalization). 

I think this line does not match 2.3 Canonicalization - because the 
referenced section says - "with the fields ordered by the separators, 
alphabetically. "
I think we don't want to make the order of <field> significant - for 
example, assume there is a new <sep> "x0" is introduced - 

und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007-x0-foo

and

und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-x0-foo-m0-ungegn-2007

would be equivalent (but, the canonical representation is - 
"und-Cyrl-t-und-latn-m0-ungegn-2007-x0-foo" - because field "m0-*" and 
"field "x0-*" are sorted alphabetical order).

If my interpretation is correct, Section 2.2 d should be changed to "The 
order of the fields in a t extension is significant" (a field consists 
from <sep> and subtags represented by 3*8alphanum).



Otherwise, the latest edition looks clean and ready to go.

Yoshito Umaoka