[Ltru] Re: Re: proto-draft-10

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Mon, 03 December 2007 23:45 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKyd-0002J5-2m; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:45:27 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKyc-0002CA-7J for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:45:26 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKyb-00028y-QS for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:45:25 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKyZ-0008Tm-W8 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:45:25 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKyS-0005yE-Er for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:45:16 +0000
Received: from c-180-160-31.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.180.160.31]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:45:16 +0000
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-31.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:45:16 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:47:12 +0100
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <fj24ds$agg$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <47544CA9.5000805@yahoo-inc.com> <fj1qq9$97h$1@ger.gmane.org> <20071203225946.GC15972@mercury.ccil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-180-160-31.hh.dial.de.ignite.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
Cc:
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Re: proto-draft-10
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

John Cowan wrote:
 
>> It still contains the unused 5*8ALPHA "registered languages"
>> instead of reviving the good tradition of i-whatever tags
>> for this in the times of 639-3 likely unnecessary loophole.
 
> I agree on the "likely unnecessary", but not on the "good
> tradition".  That particular tradition is a bad one; we're
> better off with one-part language subtags, even in the
> escape hatch.

Okay, then we might agree to disagree.  The main difference 
between "liaden" and "i-liaden" is that the former allows
"liaden-Hant-fonupa" while the latter has to be used as is.

There are no registered languages, so what's the point of
allowing the full set of BCP 47 features for them ?  For
cases like i-default I don't miss any default-Hant-fonupa
opportunity.

As explained earlier  5*8( ALPHA )  limits implementation
freedom if there would be ever a variant and a language
using the same subtag.  

>>| Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used
>>| with care and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only
>>| be used where it is actually required for interoperation
>>| or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm
 
> That's for protocols.  We are trying to constrain the behavior
> of human beings, a far more difficult set of objects.

If we don't like chapter 6 of RFC 2119 we should say so instead
of "to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]".  There's a
similar issue in the Last Called 2821bis, and I proposed a way
to quote RFC 2119 excluding chapter 6: 

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.smtp/6260/match=2119>

 Frank



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru