Subject: [Ltru] Re: Open points before -02

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:22:47 -0700

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

>> I continue to think this is an excellent idea.  Is it on-topic for
>> this WG, or should those of us who support this idea start meeting
>> off-list to discuss it?
> ...
>
> I'd rather not request any additions to our list of deliverables at
> this time, though I'd be willing to discuss it after we've finished
> our chartered deliverables.

Randy is completely right, and to be honest, I don't know what I was
thinking.  Of course if it's not a proper deliverable for the WG, it's
not on-topic for the list.  I guess I need to start thinking less like a
mailing-list member and more like a WG member.

I applaud John Cowan's initiative in starting a separate mailing list to
codify record-jar.

--
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: Thu, 19 May 2005 23:47:13 -0700

McDonald, Ira <imcdonald at sharplabs dot com> wrote:

> Whenever possible, the language tag registry draft should not
> encourage the proliferation of aliases for tags or subtags.

Misha Wolf <Misha dot Wolf at reuters dot com> wrote:

> We must insist that those creating tags use canonical values.
> Any other approach will lead to a broken Internet.

and yet Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> says:

> The complete concept of "Canonical:" appears to be
> wrong, if you even think about any "let's forget the rest".
> ...
> Supporting only an obsolete idea of "Canonical:" as stated in
> an obscure IANA registry not reflecting the state of the art
> in the source standards after date-B was a worse idea.

IMHO, this is the single biggest technical stumbling block in the
project.  The draft has always taken the middle road by saying that
there were canonical subtags, which would not change dammit, and then
there were aliases which could be used (but shouldn't), and must be
recognized as equivalent to the canonical.

Now we have some saying there should be no aliases at all, only
canonicals, and others saying the whole notion of canonical stability is
"an obsolete idea."  Folks, if we don't find a way to resolve this, we
are nowhere.