Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registryprocessors.
"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Sun, 01 July 2007 23:38 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 1I5906-0003jf-B6; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:42 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I5904-0003jO-42 for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I5903-0003jB-Qp for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:39 -0400
Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I58zz-00075T-Fg for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:39 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=A9bd1oYbDa6tiOIAo2a+j4bd46yJOKf5zrQxeDjwb+xz2cfprxzkgtLpEcD/kXKt; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [64.105.34.104] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1I58zy-0004Oq-Ql for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:35 -0400
Message-ID: <003f01c7bc39$08708ca0$6601a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <30b660a20707011618m67fe32e6n73e81f8d3bddd69d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of registryprocessors.
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:39:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888fa44b31bb60a93566b0c601d465286ba03398137085246d4350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 64.105.34.104
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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
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
- [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibility of… Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibilit… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibilit… Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibilit… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibilit… Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Suggested text for future compatibilit… Mark Davis
- [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibilit… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatib… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatib… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang John Cowan
- [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibilit… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang John Cowan
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang Kent Karlsson
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Macrolanguage and extlang John Cowan