Re: [Ltru] Re: Summary of 2007-10-03 teleconference

There is reason to look at how the two different macrolanguage models in
affect 4647. If the primary reason cited for the extlang model is
compatibility, then we have to see what effects each model has on commonly
used matching functions, which is where the rubber hits the road.

Mark

On 10/8/07, Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:
>
> > If we bake it in, then every simple algorithm will in practice
> > automatically fall back from Cantonese to Mandarin, fall back from
> > Dari to Persian, fall back from Khetrani to Lahnda -- and in doing so,
> > strip the script and country information.
>
> As I've said countless times before:  If we're going to assume that
> simple, remove-from-right algorithms are the order of the day, then we
> are wasting our time and everyone else's by contemplating an update to
> RFC 4647.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
Mark