Hmm...
That's "as an editorial issue and not a technical issue".
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]On Behalf Of Addison
Phillips [wM]
Sent: 2004年12月18日 16:49
To: ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com; Bruce Lilly
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Subject: RE: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
We (Mark and I) welcome the last call process and timelines and
the feedback these generate. That's the whole point of having a Last Call.
The -CS subtag issue doesn't strike me as a technical issue with
the draft. The draft stabilizes the meaning of subtags. There is
a process in the draft for setting the initial (and thus stable)
meaning of the -CS subtag. While it probably matters which value
(Czechoslovakia or Serbia and Montenegro) that is selected, it is
only of editorial interest to the draft itself... unless what
Bruce is trying to prove is that stabilizing the meaning of the
subtags is a Bad Idea, which I don't think is his point.
I'm willing to entertain a debate about which meaning ought to be
selected. But really it ought to be recognized as not an
editorial issue with the draft and not a technical objection.
Best Regards,
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]On Behalf Of
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
Sent: 2004年12月18日 15:41
To: Bruce Lilly
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some
total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change).
Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been
some announcement of the proposed considerable changes
on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG
charter.
This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents
for four weeks
rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this
may well mean
the document is in some sense "less done".
So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long
language tags, now
that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add
a max length
restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do.
However, we
got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any
previously valid
RFC3066 tag be invalid
Entirely appropriate. And the proposed draft would
invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language
tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use.
and any length restriction would do that.
If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use
tags from an explicit limit.
I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf