Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1098] WGLC distinguish subtag and extensions registries

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:57:35 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> Adoption of this document will also REQUIRE an initial version of the
> Language Extension Registry described in Section 3.6. This registry is
> initially expected to contain no records.

It absolutely MUST contain no records initially.  The chain of events
guarantees it.  In order to exist in the registry, extensions must be
defined in approved RFCs that were written in accordance with the
(already-approved) RFC 3066bis.

Or maybe I've got this wrong.  Is there any provision for an extension
RFC to be written and approved before RFC 3066bis goes live?

> It MUST be initialized with the following text:
>
> # Language Tag Extensions Registry (see RFC XXXX)
> File-Date: 2005-08-13

We decided against having a comment-header like this for the main
Language Subtag Registry.  I think it would be quite odd and hard to
justify why we have such a header for one registry but not for the
other.

We could resolve this by adding a comparable one-line header for the
main registry, or by deleting the one Addison proposes here.  Either
would be fine with me.

--
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: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:54:39 -0700

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

> So far, two (Doug and Kent) have spoken in favor of making the
> distinction clearer.  Is any more discussion needed before directing
> the editors to make appropriate changes in the registry i-d?

To clarify, here is the passage from Kent to which I responded:

> [Kent Karlsson]
>> 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.
>
> [Doug Ewell]
> 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.

In other words, there *might* be specific spots in draft-registry where
the word "registry" might be misunderstood, and might benefit from being
qualified as "subtag registry" or "extension(s) registry."  Those are
the only changes I would propose, and if the group agrees that those
spots are not really ambiguous either, except through willful
misreading, then I would agree with Randy that these minor changes are
unnecessary.

Adding the extension(s) registry to draft-initial (I prefer "extension"
without the "s", parallel to "subtag registry," but others seem to like
it) definitely will require some rewording to resolve newly created
ambiguities.  If we go that route, group review of the new wording will
be essential.