Re: [Ltru] Re: no teleconference this week

If we wanted to do the minimum, we'd put at least a note in 4646bis about
the potential use of the macrolanguage field, with some cautions (something
like a very limited version of the text I'd proposed for 4647bis);
alternatively, I put the latter text out on the table, and could make a
4647bis draft on that basis (as modified during subsequent discussion -- I'm
not wedded to that exact text).

What do people think?

Mark

On Dec 4, 2007 8:41 PM, Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:
>
> > We can close the telecon down, if we don't think that it would be
> > useful in clarifying and finishing off the remaining items.
>
> Is there still talk of opening up 4647 to add something about the
> Macrolanguage field and its potential use in matching?
>
> (not arguing for or against)
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell <http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Edewell>
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
Mark