JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
I also note the importance of the entities given by the Internet
standard process in BCPs. I would be interested in knowing which entities
are participating as such (or nearly as such - I see the W3C, which other
entity?) to this proposition.
Construe,
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
your draft is not controverted for bettering RFC 3066 but for not
bettering it enough, in an interapplication concerted way, for the
standard you want your draft to become.
The intent is that the draft become a BCP replacing RFC 3066 (also a BCP),
not an
Date: 2005-01-02 19:47
From: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be entirely possible for en-Latn-US-boont to be
registered under the terms of RFC 3066.
But it hasn't been. No RFC 3066 parser will therefore find
that complete tag in its list of IANA registered tags,
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 17:49 -0800 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
Christian,
It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on
this. The spec has
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John C Klensin
Sent: 200513 18:41
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process
At 00:55 05/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
The characterization of this draft as controversial because two or three
people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence
presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect.
Dear Addison,
your draft
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
-- Christian Huitema
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Christian == Christian Huitema [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christian Could you please pursue this rather technical
Christian discussion on a specialized list, rather than the main
Christian IETF list?
There is sort of this problem that most of this traffic is last call
comments on a
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 17:49 -0800 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
Christian,
It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on
this. The spec has
Date: 2005-01-01 21:58
From: Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org
2. RFC 3066 did not require every possible combination of language
subtag + country subtag to be registered.
None *could* be registered.
Even if by some oversight or lapse of
Hi Bruce,
Even if by some oversight or lapse of judgment the tag
en-US were to be registered, its interpretation by a
parser would be as an ISO 639 language code followed by
an ISO 3166 country code. SUch a registration would
therefore be pointless. In practice, therfore, it
simply
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
There is nothing in RFC 3066 that says a registered tag must have 3 to 8
characters in the second subtag. It simply requires that any tag in which
the second subtag is 3 to 8 letters must be
Date: 2004-12-30 12:11
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. All tags valid under the generative RFC 3066bis syntax could have
been registered, and therefore would have been valid, under RFC 3066 as
well.
Not so. RFC 3066 section 2.2 specifically requires for IANA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
2. RFC 3066 did not require every possible combination of language
subtag + country subtag to be registered.
None *could* be registered.
That is not correct; there is nothing in RFC 3066
14 matches
Mail list logo
