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

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:22:34 -0700

> Mark,
> I am sorry, Frank is right. You cannot be cannonical with tables you do
> not
> control. This is precisely the problem the charter wants us to address.
> Stability is not in the ID but in the documented object.  You have two
> possibilities: to attach a date to the ID or to define your own canonical
> table and relate it to the ID.
> jfc

Uh... The items in the registry all have dates attached to them. And they are in their own canonical table over which the registry draft has ironclad control. We are discussing rules for the maintenance of canonical values and stability of those values in that registry. The use of ISO 3166 to provide some of the values in that table does not mean that the registry cedes control to the ISO 3166 MA. Defining rules for how the registry tracks ISO 3166 is what we are about here, since creating separate standards for these things is unappealing.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 01:55:10 +0200

On 01:22 12/05/2005, Addison Phillips said:
>Uh... The items in the registry all have dates attached to them. And they 
>are in their own canonical table over which the registry draft has 
>ironclad control. We are discussing rules for the maintenance of canonical 
>values and stability of those values in that registry. The use of ISO 3166 
>to provide some of the values in that table does not mean that the 
>registry cedes control to the ISO 3166 MA. Defining rules for how the 
>registry tracks ISO 3166 is what we are about here, since creating 
>separate standards for these things is unappealing.

Can you document the interest of a canonical table over which you want to 
have ironclad control? You create there your own standard. What for? Your 
job is not to maintain a canonical base but to tell users what a code used 
at a given date meant in the ISO table. It could change every year, you do 
not mind. Not your concern. Your concern (look at the charter) is to make 
sure the users know what is each subtag in the format and reach the proper 
version value. The registry does not cede control to the ISO 3166 MA, the 
ISO 3166 MA _HAS_ control, the registry just copy it in a readable form for 
your usage. Otherwise it conflicts.
jfc