JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I would like to understand why
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt
claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition,
conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
I've read this draft and see nothing wrong with it. Having a fixed,
unambiguous way to parse the elements of a language tag is certainly
a good idea. What specific current practices do you think it conflicts
with?
I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by some, as long
as it does not exclude more specific/advanced language identification
formats, processes or future IANA or ISO 11179 conformant registries.
The grammar defined in the draft is already flexible enough.
--
David Hopwood
<david(_dot_)nospam(_dot_)hopwood(_at_)blueyonder(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf