Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #949] remove three-character limit in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3 (of -00)

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:59:51 -0700

Hi -

Comments 20 and 21 of message
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00540.html
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
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00628.html

Randy, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: Markus Scherer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:18:32 -0700

The fixed subtag lengths are carefully chosen to allow for parsing of
language tags. In particular, "memory waste" for script subtags is
irrelevant: Language tags are not designed to use the fewest bits
imaginable. "another code element" will not have "a fixed 4 characters
length in the future" precisely because of the parsing of language
tags.

See also John Cowan's reply, especially on point 21.

It seems like 949 should be rejected.

markus

-- 
Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless
otherwise noted.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 04:35:39 +0200

>length in the future" precisely because of the parsing of language

If you like  it, I obviously have no problem with that if the Draft drops 
its claim to be BCP 47. It will be a language oriented XML unable to 
document the script alone. Imagine you travel around and you only see the 
signs, the labels, the books, the newspapers if you can _first_ say in 
which language they are printed.

Good luck :-)
jfc