Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registryprocessors.

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:18 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registryprocessors.
....
> Add to the end of 3.1.2.  Record Definitions:
> 
> Future versions of the language subtag registry may add more fields.
> Processors of the registry that are not intended to be updated with each
> successive version of BCP 47 and thus need to be compatible with future
> versions of the registry, SHOULD be written so as to ignore additional
> fields.
...

I agree with the intent, but I'd like to propose a slightly different wording:

  Future versions of this memo MAY define additional field types for
  use in the language subtag registry.  Consequently, software to
  process the content of the registry SHOULD tolerate unrecognized
  field types.

Rationales:

(1) I think this is a bit clearer and more concise
(2)  "tolerate" rather than "ignore" - consider the result of
a typo: "Suppers-Script:"   - I think one would like an implementation
to be able to issue a warning, rather than simply ignoring, a field
that it doesn't recognize.

Randy

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