Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1016] restrict the maximum number of extlang subtags to five

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:30:46 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

>> Randy, can we have a ticket for "restrict the maximum number of
>> extlang subtags to five"?
> ...
>
> Done.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This issue was raised in message
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01937.html
> of a longer thread.
>
> Note that this is distinct from issue [psg.com #943]

I support this.  I mean, it's arbitrary and not beautiful, but it seems
to satisfy an objection that was holding up progress, without imposing a
serious practical limitation.  So, I support it.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 20:46:37 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> Won't work: Variants and private use subtags are not bounded in
> number. Neither can extension lengths be known in advance.

I agree.  In addition to what Addison said, even those limits that can
be known in advance would add up to a maximum length that few
space-limited applications would honor:

lng-exa-exb-exc-exd-exe-scrp-RG-variant-e-xtension-x-private

contains only one variant, one extension, and one private-use subtag,
but is already 60 characters, much longer than an encoded-word could
handle.  There's not much point in imposing an upper limit that would
still be too long for some applications.

I don't think the title of this thread/ticket quite matches the question
asked in the body.  My response to the title would be, *of course* a
conformant implementation may impose a length constraint.  So says
Section 2.1.1.