Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag problematic

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:18:19 -0700

[psg.com #946] use of both length and position to identify subtag
problematic

> Comment #17 in message
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00540.html
> states that the use of both length and position to identify
> subtags would be problematic.

It's not hard at all.

> A response to this concern is in message
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00628.html
> No alternative garnered significant support.

No alternative was even proposed.

> Can we mark this one "rejected"?

Please do.

--
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, 10 May 2005 22:19:05 -0700

> I've marked this rejected, ok?

Agreed.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:20:35 -0700

> This proposal was withdrawn in message
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00717.html
>
> Consequently, I've marked it "rejected."

I don't see the part where the proposal was withdrawn, but I agree very
strongly with rejecting it.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:24:30 -0700

> Comments 20 and 21 of message
> both focus on the length constraints in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of
> the -00 draft.
>
> There is some followup on this question in message

No opinion on Comment 20, since I'm in no position to judge the
stability of the 3-character architecture in the ISO 639-3 draft.
Others who are in a better position to judge have told us it is very
stable.

I strongly disagree with Comment 21.  There is no evidence that the
syntactical structure of ISO 15924 or any of the other core standards is
likely to change.  The remark about "the memory waste of ISO 15924 (3
bytes lost)" is particularly confusing, since there are already more
than 100 assigned code elements in ISO 15924 and the code elements are
limited to A through Z (so at least 2 letters would be needed in any
event).

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:35:10 -0700

Hi -

There was no consensus to adopt this item, so I've marked it "rejected".

Randy, ltru co-chair