Re: [Ltru] Geocoordinates

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Thu, 12 March 2009 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD0D3A6862 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qQoPjzJOVkQk for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpout10.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpout10-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 10BCC3A6856 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31315 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2009 01:31:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (67.166.27.148) by smtpout10.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.235) with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2009 01:31:37 -0000
Message-ID: <9EA6D78C566E49D79C37CA3396384644@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.89.1236798009.19875.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:31:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Geocoordinates
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:31:03 -0000

Mark Davis <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

> It is not necessarily non-conformant. I could define a field as 
> follows:
>
>   - if it has 4 characters and no hyphen, it means X
>   - otherwise it is interpreted as a BCP 47 language tag.
>
> That is perfectly conformant usage of BCP 47, and would work with the 
> current spec. The disadvantage is that if BCP47 ever uses 4-letter 
> base language codes, then you can't represent the full range of BCP47 
> at that point. So you definitely take a risk in using such a 
> definition in terms of future compatibility, but such a definition is 
> not non-conformant.

That sounds to me somewhat like a field containing a 16-bit unsigned 
integer defined as follows:

 - if it is within the range 0x0880 through 0x08FF, it is a message ID
 - otherwise it is interpreted as a UTF-16 code unit

on the basis that no Unicode characters between U+0880 and U+08FF are 
currently assigned.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ