Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

[Mark Davis ☕ <[e-mail]>]

I agree; so I think we ought to see how everything works first, before
extending.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:14, Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mark Davis 🍮 <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>
> >> My concern is that the -t-...-t- mechanism would come to be used,
> >> which would violate the RFC.
> >
> > We already see the far more common en-GB-FR (meaning en-GB and the
> > user is currently in FR). There are so many other ways to violate the
> > BCP47 RFC that duplicate -t- extensions pale in comparison. Any
> > implementation of BCP47 already needs to deal with goofy tags.
>
> I don't think that's a great reason to open the door even wider.  But
> I'm also not sure how much demand there will be in the real world to
> stack these "transformed from" identifiers two or more levels deep.  (We
> can always contrive our own examples, of course.)
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>