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

Your changes sound fine by me. I do have a question. I thought MAY was only
capitalized when it was in reference to conformance to this document. But in
that statement it doesn't seem to apply: it doesn't appear that we in this
document can make any conformance promises (positive or negative) about
future versions since that is entirely in the hands of the IETF.

Mark

On 7/1/07, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Mark