Subject: [Ltru] Open points before -02

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 15:11:41 +0200

Hi, here's my short list of issues in -01 (details later):

1 - check and fill gaps in Suppress-Scripts
2 - check SHOULD, MUST, and rationale for Suppress-Scripts
3 - improve registry ABNF, simplify the corresponding chapter
4 - redefine canonical / deprecated to follow the underlying
    ISO and UN standards (stable forever != canonical forever)
5 - move redundant tags from draft registry to an appendix

If that's really all we should in theory be ready in about two
weeks, excluding point 1 "Suppress-Script gaps", that could be
the most time consuming problem.

Transforming Doug's lstreg.txt to proto-I-D-XML, and creating
a proper I-D with xml2rfc, should be a matter of hours.  Bye.

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 15:11:41 +0200

[reposted, mailing list problem after 2005-05-01 12:00 (?)]

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 20:39:51 +0200

Hi, the details for:

| 5 - move redundant tags from draft registry to an appendix

At the moment the draft registry contains 64 redundant tags
in 320 lines or about 6 KB.

Adding the explanation in the registry draft, and the code in
all future 3066bis parsers to ignore these 64 really redundant
tags I prefer to move them to a new "appendix D" enumeration.

Proposed text for the "IANA Considerations":

   Appendix D (Redundant Tags) lists all tags registered under
   the rules of [RfC 3066] which are now covered by identical
   and fully compatible tags composed of subtags.  Unlike all
   other "grandfathered" tags these redundant tags and their
   registration forms should not be kept in the IANA registry.

Proposed text for "Appedix D: Redundant Tags"

   The following valid tags were registered under the rules of
   [RfC 3066] and are now covered by identical tags composed
   of subtags.  They are therefore not copied to the list of
   "grandfathered" tags defined in Section 2.2.8.

   Redundant tags: az-Arab, az-Cyrl, az-Latn, be-Latn, bs-Cyrl,
   bs-Latn, cel-gaulish, de-1901, de-1996, de-AT-1901, de-AT-1996,
   de-CH-1901, de-CH-1996, de-DE-1901, de-DE-1996, en-boont,
   en-scouse, iu-Cans, iu-Latn, mn-Cyrl, mn-Mong, sgn-BR, sgn-CO,
   sgn-DE, sgn-DK, sgn-ES, sgn-FR, sgn-GB, sgn-GR, sgn-IE, sgn-IT,
   sgn-JP, sgn-MX, sgn-NI, sgn-NL, sgn-NO, sgn-PT, sgn-SE, sgn-US,
   sgn-ZA, sl-nedis, sl-rozaj, sr-Cyrl, sr-Latn, tg-Arab, tg-Cyrl,
   uz-Cyrl, uz-Latn, yi-latn, zh-guoyu, zh-hakka, zh-Hans,
   zh-Hans-CN, zh-Hans-HK, zh-Hans-MO, zh-Hans-SG, zh-Hans-TW,
   zh-Hant, zh-Hant-CN, zh-Hant-HK, zh-Hant-MO, zh-Hant-SG,
   zh-Hant-TW, zh-xiang.

About 25 lines in less than 2 KB text, and no sweat for developers
of 3066bis code.
                            Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 20:44:28 +0200

Here's the updated registry ABNF for:

| 3 - improve registry ABNF, simplify the corresponding chapter

  registry    = file-date *( "%%" CRLF record )
  file-date   = "File-Date:" 1*SP date CRLF     ; first line
  record      = 1*( field CRLF )
  field       = type / tag / timestamp / reference / explanation
  type        = "Type:" 1*SP ( subtag-type / "grandfathered" )
  subtag-type = "language" / "extlang" / "script"
              / "region" / "variant"
  tag         = ( "Subtag:" / "Tag:" ) 1*SP tagtext
  reference   = ( "Canonical:" / "Suppress-Script:"
                / "Recommended-Prefix:" ) 1*SP value
  explanation = ( "Description:" / "Comments:" ) 1*SP text
  timestamp   = ( "Added:" / "Deprecated:" ) 1*SP date
  date        = 4DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT "-" 2DIGIT    ; see RfC 3339
  value       = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )       ; note no WSP
  text        = *( ASC-char / LWSP )            ; note folding WSP
  ASC-char    = %x21-25 / %x27-7E / UNI-char    ; AMPERSAND is %x26
  UNI-char    = "&#x" 2*6HEXDIG ";"

I've removed "Redundant:" and tagtype.  This ABNF is a subset of
the general ABNF in draft -01, and it simplifies the implementation
of "registry parsers":

- Five sets of fields, line folding 'LWSP' is only possible in the
  'text' of an 'explanation' (i.e. "Comments:" or "Description:").

- A Recommended-Prefix with more than 50 characters is impossible,
  it has no SP for the folding.  Removing 14 "Recommended-" would
  allow 64 characters for a monster "Prefix:", and it would reduce
  the size of the registry.  BTW, the draft -01 prefix limit is 71.

- UNI-char is only possible in the 'text' of an 'explanation', six
  cases of a 'type' are enumerated, 'date' and 'value' have their
  own syntax without special characters.

- No more space 'SP' before the colon, at least one 'SP' after the
  colon, i.e. colon added to the 11 field names.

- The 11 possible field names are more visible than in draft -01.
  The ABNF reflects Doug's latest draft registry (2005-04-30).

                           Bye, Frank

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 21:19:27 +0200

>   tag         = ( "Subtag:" / "Tag:" ) 1*SP tagtext

Sorry, a stupid last minute change, s/tagtext/value/

> BTW, the draft -01 prefix limit is 71.

No, it says *SP, no LWSP, no folding, therefore it's only 51.

Recommended-Prefix:lng-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-ext-Latn
....5...10....5...20....5...30....5...40....5...50....5...60...5...70..

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 06:11:43 +0200

> 1 - check and fill gaps in Suppress-Scripts

That was "rejected", the actual idea is to publish the registry
draft first (closing the old registry), and to finish the
business with the draft registry later.

> 2 - check SHOULD, MUST, and rationale for Suppress-Scripts

Addison proposed a rationale to be added in -02.  Maybe Ira
and Randy still want to replace two corresponding SHOULD NOT
by some "MUST NOT unless".

> 3 - improve registry ABNF, simplify the corresponding chapter

That was rejected, Addison wants to document the record-jar
format, not its registry incarnation.  That's backwards from
my POV, mail (2822) and news (1036) use prose for the simple
general format, and syntax for the header field details, but
there's no rule to do it this way also in 3066bis.

>     ISO and UN standards (stable forever != canonical forever)

Already discussed elsewhere.  The last idea was to replace the
"normative Canonical: xx" by an "informative Use: xx".

> 5 - move redundant tags from draft registry to an appendix

Alread discussed elsewhere.  It's possible to arrange things
this way, the registry would be shorter, implementations would
be simpler, but after all that's mainly a matter of taste.  And
it's already clear that I didn't like two MO-nsense entries.

                          Bye, Frank