JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
the situation you describe is RFC 3066 Bis situation.
No. As far as I'm concerned you can publish your draft
announced for early 2005 whenever it pleases you.
You can also create your very own "language name system"
organized like DNS with multiple roots and governmental
control when you find the time for it - IIRC you want to
discuss it with the UNESCO and the UN general assembly
first, so this delay is not necessarily your fault.
Another of your ideas is to use the tag-URI scheme for
language tags, after all they are "tags", and consistent
terminology is a good thing. But the LTRU WG decided
to stick to the 3066 syntax for backwards compatibility,
and it was you who wanted to disrupt and break 3066.
There is no problem for the RFC 3066 Bis ABNF and the
RFC 4151 to coexist.
Because they are unrelated, all they share is the word
"tag". You can use as many tag-URIs as it pleases you.
If you use them as values for xml:lang or in similar
3066-contexts it would be invalid. Otherwise no harm.
You use the term "malice",
This thread is about experiments passing a laugh test,
or that was my assumption. It's good that you made it
clear that there also cases not passing a laugh test -
I'd say that's not good enough for "experimental RfC".
Above all there must be a draft first. I don't think
that the IESG question is about "experiments" with tag
URIs in 3066-contexts.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf