[Ltru] Re: Suggested text for future compatibility of registry processors.

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

> While catching up on my backlog I notice the following note from Mark.
>
> I would note that we already have a shorter equivalent of this text at 
> the end of 3.1.2, where it says:
>
> --
> Future versions of this document might add additional fields to the 
> registry, so implementations SHOULD ignore fields found in the 
> registry that are not defined in this document.
> --
>
> This text was apparently added back in draft-02. Any reason to edit it 
> some more?

This is fine, and the right thing to do for 4646bis, but the point still 
remains that this wording isn't in place for the current spec, RFC 4646, 
and so adding new fields will break strictly 4646-conformant processors 
in the same way that converting the Registry to UTF-8 will.  Note that I 
didn't say either change is a bad thing, or unjustified.

--
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