Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Fri, 08 July 2011 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060EE21F8B60 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w7CgPelACLxz for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 501EA21F8B5F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:38:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10649 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2011 16:38:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.132) by smtpoutwbe09.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 8 Jul 2011 16:38:50 -0000
Received: (qmail 6948 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jul 2011 16:38:50 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.190
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.08
Message-Id: <20110708093849.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.f7747e9524.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 09:38:49 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:38:52 -0000

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Also, if my memory serves me correct, the responsibility for
> maintaining extension data was designed for private extensions not
> this type of extension where there is a more public use.

If you mean the 'x' singleton, as in "en-x-whatever", there are no
procedures.  You just make up the subtags and use them, and if you want
anyone else to understand them, you distribute a private agreement. 
These subtags don't have to be stabled, versioned, or freely available. 
They do have to be syntactically valid (e.g. 2*8alphanum), but that's
about it.

I just noticed that RFC 5646, Section 2.2.6 ("Extension Subtags"), item
3 says, "Note that there might not be a registry of these subtags."  I
missed this until now and wonder how it fits with Section 3.7, which
requires the extension RFC to specify the "URL location of the
registry."  Obviously that doesn't mean the IANA Language Tag Extensions
Registry; there would be no point in repeating that in every extension
RFC.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­