IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Fri, 12 October 2007 10:07 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 1IgHQc-0006GT-75; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:34 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IgHQa-0006Ei-ET for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:32 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgHQa-0006Ea-4G for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:32 -0400
Received: from 132.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.132] helo=mx1.nexbyte.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IgHQZ-0006Tq-Pm for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:07:32 -0400
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.2) with ESMTP id md50007334326.msg for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:11:00 +0100
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:07:29 +0100
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: dewell@roadrunner.com, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <E1IdcAd-0008M3-Cl@megatron.ietf.org><009301c80a0e$8a4b9c10$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A5987FFBE@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <04f501c80b22$68debac0$0d00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <008c01c80c9e$5a098ac0$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:06:15 +0100
Message-ID: <08be01c80cb7$86cd7760$0d00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <008c01c80c9e$5a098ac0$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
Thread-Index: AcgMnpoce1bV9PUlS/WFOWl7zbWwmQAF0hbA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:11:00 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=180595bbdf=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:11:01 +0100
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
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 Doug

> I would not be in favor of creating 482 new
> deprecated-at-birth subtags.
> I think "deprecated" is a necessary evil that is needed when
> an ISO code element is withdrawn or a mistake is found.  It
> should not be a mechanism for implementing fallback.

To be honest, the whole macrolanguage scenario has been developed to deal
with historical coding errors and the great extlang debate is the result.  I
really cannot see the harm in this proposal.  I know it is not what this
function was originally designed for but it would be using the RFC to its
optimum. I would imagine that good application designers will incorporate
something like this anyway so to standardize such a hack (as Frank calls it)
is sensible.  It is what standardization is all about.

Best regards

Debbie






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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email