Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #954] all aliases must be equally supported

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:56:16 -0700

I don't know if this particular issue got resolved yet, but I'm
concerned about an informative "Use" field that seems to run counter to
the normative "Canonical" field.  We have text all over the draft that
says processors should use a canonical subtag instead of an alias
whenever possible.  This proposal would turn that on its ear; you would
have situations where one tag would be canonical, yet processors would
actually be encouraged to use the other one.

Or, alternatively, there would be only a "Use" field and no "Canonical"
field.  That would make "Use" into sort of an ersatz "Canonical," but
with none of the stability that the word "canonical" implies.

I agree that the whole matter of "deprecated but canonical" subtags is
weird, but I'm not at all convinced this is the right solution.

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

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 12:07:22 -0400

> weird, but I'm not at all convinced this is the right solution.

It's pretty straightforward, actually.  They were taken into our registry
from a source standard, and if they become deprecated (and so not canonical)
for that source, they are still canonical *for us*.

-- 
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim  John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust?   [email-masked]
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum,         http://www.reutershealth.com
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.     http://www.ccil.org/cowan
        --author unknown to me; any suggestions?