[Ltru] Re: proto-draft-10

Addison Phillips wrote:

> You will note that I have not removed extlang from the ABNF

I also note that it still contains the fantasy island codes,
Chairs, please produce the consensus for this modification
in -09.

It still contains "Latin transliterations of descriptions",
without saying what Latin is, or why the subtag review list
should create "transliterations" when the source standard
didn't bother for whatever reasons.

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.

As a consequence of not removing the extlang syntax it still
contains the answer 42 instead of a much more MIME friendly
limit 30 (or 31 for a 639-6 language).

Allegedly it's unclear that a subtag can be "undrepecated"
if say (in theory) ISO 3166-1 revives FX.  Or rather Doug
said that it's clearly not allowed, IMO that would be a bug.

It still allows "generic" variants without prefix, they're
known to be cumbersome (fonipa + fonupa).  

There's a typo s/SHOULD NOT/should not/ in the 1901 + 1996
example, don't use 2119 keywords in examples.  Far too much
"MUSTard" in RFC 4646 and the draft, compare RFC 2119:

| 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

 Frank

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