[Ltru] Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments)

"Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com> Fri, 30 June 2006 16:59 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwML9-0001Ty-PV; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:59:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwML8-0001Mu-J3 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:59:34 -0400
Received: from mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwML7-0005k3-DQ for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:59:34 -0400
Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c249.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.249]) by mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k5UGxNSf023575; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=OwmTo2Z0qnVjjUjLRiQo4j8NVVsuFgaDvWncpJUM+A9lwg5ihrN712/msbBVv2lE
From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
To: brc@zurich.ibm.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:59:22 -0700
Message-ID: <000101c69c66$899ca6e0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcacZokGJtott1yWRGGi518i+N/AmA==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Brian Carpenter asked Mark and I privately:

--
I'd really like to have the authors' and shepherds' comments
on section 2.2 before casting my ballot on this. Did the WG consciously
decide that en-*-*-*-en was valid, and distinct from
en-*-*-en? 
--

en-*-*-*-en is not functionally distinct from "en-*-*-en" (or en-*-en, en-en, or en-en-*, for that matter).

It is possible to construct a language range syntax that uses RFC 3066bis's syntax. In such a syntax the position and number of wildcards would be significant. However, the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 


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