Re: [Ltru] Re: Pointers from registry to documentation

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Thu, 29 June 2006 01:25 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvlI5-0007Ue-9q; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:25:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvlI4-0007UZ-3z for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:25:56 -0400
Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FvlI2-0002lx-Te for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:25:56 -0400
Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FvlI1-0000Xt-L9; Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:25:53 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:25:53 -0400
To: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Pointers from registry to documentation
Message-ID: <20060629012553.GD21235@ccil.org>
References: <04ac01c69ad0$48c2f850$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> <004c01c69ad5$47a14260$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <004c01c69ad5$47a14260$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org, 'Doug Ewell' <dewell@adelphia.net>, 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
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

Addison Phillips scripsit:

> However, my sense is that file-level comments will not be added during
> an RFC 3066ter effort, in an effort to do as little as possible to
> the file format. It might be possible to ease the restriction on the
> File-Date so that it can contain Comments fields. Most record-jar
> processors are already capable of handling multiple field records
> anyway...

My objection to file-level comments is that it's not clear what
record they are in, and since we maintain the file record by record,
they would need a unique mechanism for change control.

This objection wouldn't apply to Comment: entries in the File-Date
record, though, and I'd be in favor of that.

-- 
They tried to pierce your heart                 John Cowan
with a Morgul-knife that remains in the         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
wound.  If they had succeeded, you would
become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord.         --Gandalf

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