[Ltru] Re: UTF-8

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> The other possibility is to say whatever the sources say.  I didn't 
> note that you modified the source descriptions in some way.  Please 
> don't do this without a rule for it in 4646bis.

I didn't.

Having said that, I would really like the WG to come to a FORMAL 
decision, certified by a co-chair, on this whole Description thing.  We 
should not have text in 4646bis that talks about the Description field 
being non-normative, only for identification purposes, only to indicate 
the meaning of the subtag, able to be broadened, etc., and at the same 
time be required to keep the exact ISO-originated reference name, warts 
and ambiguity and weird acute accents and all.  I'm not sure I even care 
any more which path we choose, but we cannot have it both ways.

> If that's the case they should most definitely say so.  But I don't 
> see the point, just copy what the sources say as long as it's an 
> assigned code-point for a character.

Don't forget about variant subtags registered by ietf-languages.  Those 
don't have "sources" in the sense you're thinking of.

> Good that we didn't introduce an MES-1 restriction for 4646 :-)

We didn't add any restriction, and there was a reason for that.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

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