Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching

"Doug Ewell" <> Wed, 28 August 2019 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4326C120804 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8Q9kAYFCwM7 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9324B120803 for <>; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by :WBEOUT: with SMTP id 31AgiyZKKS4QU31AgiNfoc; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:51:46 -0700
Received: (qmail 195313 invoked by uid 99); 28 Aug 2019 16:51:46 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.9.59
Message-Id: <>
From: "Doug Ewell" <>
To: "Florian Rivoal" <>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:51:44 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfB+0byMQ2vYl3d9949YBox7dMhHyObV3otQFT9OdZUMSNhKM48mxzMJZOCDm6DHZI96v/dXVk313VtwhKBrV7j4/GHoFLovpLIVkqS5dL7ooEKVf2VWA /mKS8Qv2EUTW1/L5VEWga4EjiBdDCqMxH6zEbuWyqe9Kczdqb7lU3RULDPCBCEkT7cRU91doHQT6q9ZE19+bRi7qlwLrSP7Sf/0=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Mail regarding draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis and draft-ietf-ltru-matching
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:52:19 -0000

Florian Rivoal wrote:
> The stylesheet author is then faced with two options, both
> unattractive for different reasons:
> * use the deprecated tag: [...]
> * Use both the deprecated and the preferred tag in the stylesheet's
> selector. [...]
Extlang subtags, and tags like "zh-yue" that use them, aren't
deprecated. Extlang subtags have a Preferred-Value, but they don't have
a Deprecated value. While this is a subtle distinction, "deprecated" is
a term of art in BCP 47. It might be better to use a more unwieldy term
like "non-preferred."
Section 3.1.7 says:
"For records of type 'extlang', the 'Preferred-Value' field appears
without a corresponding 'Deprecated' field.  An implementation MAY
ignore these preferred value mappings, although if it ignores the
mapping, it SHOULD do so consistently.  It SHOULD also treat the
'Preferred-Value' as equivalent to the mapped item.  For example, the
tags "zh-yue-Hant-HK" and "yue-Hant-HK" are semantically equivalent and
ought to be treated as if they were the same tag."
It does go on to say:
"The 'Preferred-Value' field in subtag records of type "extlang" also
contains an "extended language range".  This allows the subtag to be
deprecated in favor of either a single primary language subtag or a new
language-extlang sequence."
but this is confusing to me, as I'm not sure who does the "deprecating"
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US |