Subject: [Ltru] Extension registry (was: Re: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-10.txt)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:34:31 -0700

Kent Karlsson <kentk at cs dot chalmers dot se> wrote:

> Section 5.2 seems to imply that an initial extensions registry will
> be generated by this WG, like that for initial subtags registry.
> I guess it initially will be empty, just (?) containing a File-Date;
> but if that is stated explicitly anywhere, then I have so far not
> reached that piece of text. (Nit: File-Date updates should be done
> like for the subtag registry, I guess; but when a record is updated,
> the date of the update should be included in the record itself
> ("Last-Update:"?); also for language subtag registry records.)

(Counter-nit: We already have an agreed-upon mechanism for the dates of
records, which is that only the Added and Deprecated dates exist, and
are not changed after their creation.)

Back to the extension registry:  I think Kent has a point.  It does seem
that a vestigial initial extension registry needs to exist.  I don't see
any provision to defer its creation until approval of the first
extension RFC.

Assuming that the extension registry does have a File-Date, just like
the language subtag registry (I can't find a passage that says it does
or doesn't), then the entire contents of the initial extension registry
would be as follows:

File-Date: 2005-08-06

(or whatever Date B turns out to be).  Then after the first extension
RFC is approved, it might be updated to look something like the
following (warning: purely hypothetical examples follow):

File-Date: 2006-06-01
%%
Identifier: F
Description: Frame-of-mind
Comments: This extension indicates the speaker or writer's frame of
 mind at the time the linguistic content was created (e.g. "happy",
 "pensive", "morose").
Added: 2006-06-01
RFC: 5678
Authority: Molvanian Psychological Society
Contact_Email: [email-masked]
Mailing_List: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.mps.mj/stds/fom-reg.txt

(Do not try to contact these addresses.  There is no Molvania.)

> The extensions registry does not seem to have the same maintenance
> rigor in where it is to be placed and handled as the subtag registry.

I agree.  Whether that should be changed is a matter for the WG and
co-chairs.

> Since there has been some (too...) detail updates to the -initial
> document on which registry is meant (which is quite clear there),
> is is a bit odd that the -registry document sometimes says just
> "the registry", when that document actually talks about two
> registries, the (IANA) Language subtag registry, and the (IANA)
> Language extension subtag registry. I, at least, got the impression
> that those are two separate registries.

I think there are two registries.  I didn't, however, find any spots in
the text where I was confused over which registry was being referred to.
Maybe I didn't try hard enough. :-)

> I would suggest that each
> occurrence of "registry" in the -registry document be clarified
> to "(IANA) Language subtag registry", "(IANA) Language tag extension
> registry", or "(IANA) Language subtag and tag extensions registries"
> (with suitable unambiguous short forms) as appropriate.

Perhaps Kent could identify the particular spots that seemed
troublesome, and the group can decide whether appropriate editorial
changes are needed.  I suspect that changing every reference throughout
the entire document would be excessive (just as I believe it would be
excessive in draft-initial, which only deals with one registry).  The
references to "registry" in sections 3.6 and 5.2 would be most likely to
benefit from clarification.

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

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