-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ltru-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Frank Ellermann
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:05 AM
To: ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Ltru] Re: The LTRU initialization document
John C Klensin wrote:
In a situation like this, if the community leaves the IESG to
make this sort of decision without significant community
input, then the community deserves whatever the IESG does,
including coin-tossing. If people care, they should say so
clearly enough that the IESG's role is to interpret community
input, not to make things up because no one (besides some
soreheads like me) is saying anything.
It's not that nobody but you said anything about it, in fact
it's the only case of a potential "rough consensus" not covered
by a half dozen LTRU tickets.
What Addison said is IMHO correct, 3066bis must replace 3066,
they can't coexist. One of the main design goals was backwards
compatiility. Any solution designed to exist in parallel with
3066 would be completely different, because it's not forced to
be backwards compatible. For starters there won't be a kludge
like "Suppress-Script" in that hypothetical solution.
Just for the record.
Suppress-Script is NOT a kludge. It is the only basis on which
RFC3066bis is acceptable at all to the wider community.
And there is no such thing as a possibility that RFC3066 and
RFC3066bis could exist in parallel. All XML applications and
all web services applications currently depend on RFC3066 for
the syntax and semantics of 'language tags'.
Cheers,
- Ira
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald(_at_)sharplabs(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf