RE: [Ltru] Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Martin wrote:

> No. There is no old registry. There is only one registry.

I would have to disagree here.  I can see applications for using an "old"
registry in order to update to a "new" registry.

Best

Debbie
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 18 June 2007 11:26
> To: Frank Ellermann; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930
> 
> At 17:42 07/06/18, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> >Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > 
> >> That's not an error. The references are correct as published for 
> >> promotion to draft standard status.
> 
> Like others, I have problems understanding that. Randy made 
> the procedural argument (both RFC 3066 and RFC 4646 are BCPs).
> 
> There is also an implementation argument:
> There are no legal language tags in RFC 4646 that aren't 
> legal according to RFC 3066. I have absolutely no clue what 
> could break in an implementation when using a tag that became 
> legal in RFC 4646. The only thing that I can see break is 
> things such as "language not available", but then that kind 
> of error was always possible.
> 
> >At the moment you can reconstruct a 3066 registry by looking at the 
> >redundant / grandfathered tags in the 4646 registry, and in 
> the source 
> >standards (i.e. the language and region subtags in the
> >4646 registry).
> >
> >IOW just stay away from scripts, variants, and UN region numbers.
> 
> This is one interpretation, but there is also a different, in 
> my view more plausible, interpretation: RFC 4646 did a bulk 
> registration of language/region/script/whatever combinations.
> Because it became obvious that there would be scaling 
> problems when registring all combinations, we took the path 
> of changing the registry structure. The old (RFC 3066) 
> registry has been obsoleted, there is only the RFC 4646 
> registry, which is a direct continuation of the RFC 3066 
> registry. All the tags you can generate from the new registry 
> using the rules in RFC 4646 are legal tags according to RFC 
> 3066, and have to be considered under RFC 3066 as if they 
> were in fact registered one-by-one.
> 
> Frank's interpretation would mean that only the variants 
> registered at the time RFC 3066 was replaced by RFC 4646 
> would be usable. That would lead to weird requests. I 
> remember that in the transition period from RFC 3066 to RFC 
> 4646, we had somebody requesting registration of el-Latn.
> We rejected this because with RFC 4646, there would be no 
> such need anymore. With the interpretation above, that would 
> no longer be true.
> 
> 
> >With the 4646bis registry it will be more convoluted, you'd 
> also have 
> >to stay away from 639-3 languages (+ extlangs, if any pop up).
> >
> >Should 4646bis do something for protocols wishing to emulate the old 
> >3066 registry ?  We could flag the source of language tags in the 
> >description field (just an idea).  Or add a how-to as appendix.
> 
> No. There is no old registry. There is only one registry.
> The current registry IS the RFC 3066 registry, just slightly 
> overhauled.
> 
> With this, of course the reasons for citing RFC 3066 when RFC 
> 4646 was out become even less understandable.
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       
> mailto:[e-mail]     
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru