Re: [Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 3.5 to App. B

John Cowan <> Sun, 09 December 2007 05:57 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1FAn-0003s6-7I; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:53 -0500
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J1FAm-0003pY-7b for; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:52 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1FAl-0003ml-Sn for; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:51 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1FAl-0008Oj-HP for; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:51 -0500
Received: from cowan by with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <>) id 1J1FAl-0003eF-57; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:51 -0500
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:57:51 -0500
To: Frank Ellermann <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Review of 4646bis-10, sections 3.5 to App. B
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <fjel72$d7k$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fjel72$d7k$>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> I consider a "MUST" while talking with IANA as rude.

What, after they just botched updating the File-Date record?  Give me
a break.

> There is far too much MUSTard in the I-D, MUSTard
> should be reserved for cases where ignoring it is
> both plausible and would cause havoc.

It has been ignored in the past and it has created havoc.

> Can we please at least consider that neither IANA nor
> expert are idiots ?

Idiots, no; prone to careless mistakes, definitely.  People are not
protocol engines.

> > 4.1: s/Sometimes there is a choice/There is always a choice/,
> > which is much nearer the truth.
> It's "almost always" then.  

Can you think of a counterexample?  (Hint: It requires a language with
no language distinctions, script distinctions, or variant distinctions.)

> BTW, I vaguely recall that we didn't want chains:

You didn't want them, you mean.  Everyone else had no trouble with them.

> > 8 [record-jar]: add "chapter 5".
> Not sure what you're talking about.  

The bibliographic entry for [record-jar] is incomplete.

> | Future work on the Language Subtag Registry has been
> | limited to inserting or replacing whole records 
> | preformatted for IANA by the Language Subtag Reviewer
> | as described in Section 3.3 of this document and archiving
> | and making publically available the forwarded registration
> | form.
> Is that an attempt to kill the 4( ALPHA ) reservation ?

Of course not.  It means that under *this* (future) RFC there won't
be any.  BCP 47 can always be revised by issuing a new RFC.

> > My suggestions for invalid tags are xxx-Defg-HQ, 
> > de-1996-1996, en-nedis, and ar-a-aaa-b-bbb-a-ccc.
> The xxx-Defq-HQ isn't guaranteed to be invalid forever,
> or did I miss a clue ?

There are four reasons for invalidity, expressed by the four examples.
One is inherently temporal (unknown subtag); the others are eternal.

John Cowan
I come from under the hill, and under the hills and over the hills my paths
led. And through the air. I am he that walks unseen.  I am the clue-finder,
the web-cutter, the stinging fly. I was chosen for the lucky number.  --Bilbo

Ltru mailing list