Date: 2004-12-12 17:34
From: "Mark Davis" <mark(_dot_)davis(_at_)jtcsv(_dot_)com>
To: ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
CC: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Are you claiming that
sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
proposal?
Clearly not. But
x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
So what? A private-use tag has to be agreed to by the communicating
parties; in this case they'll find that such an unwieldy tag is
unusable in an encoded-word and will have to agree to use something
more manageable. That's a problem for the parties involved and
nobody else, since it doesn't affect the rest of us. That's a
different matter from a public tag that everybody is expected to
be able to use.
is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current
RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as
sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
(although of course this particular combination would certainly never get
in).
I agree that that would never be registered -- because of the
review process which is part of RFC 3066. But the draft under
discussion has no mechanism to prevent it, unlike 3066.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf