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

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