Subject: RE: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial registry draft?

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:05:32 +0100

The proposed text is unhelpful and should not be included.

Misha

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
Sent: 05 August 2005 08:59
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial
registry draft?

Hi -

We're in second working group last call.  Jefsey has kindly provided
specific text he would like added to the initial registry draft, which
is
planned to be submitted for consideration for publication as an
Informational
RFC.  Does the WG believe that this addition is technically necessary?

Randy, ltru co-chair

[...]

"This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is not

intended to be related to any registry, database or content not
documented 
in this document."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 07:38:42 -0700

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

>> "This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is
>> not intended to be related to any registry, database or content not
>> documented in this document."
>
> is planned to be submitted for consideration for publication as an
> Informational RFC.  Does the WG believe that this addition is
> technically necessary?

This is like making a statement, when I get into my car, that I am only
getting into my own car and not anyone else's.

Additionally, the word "content" makes me wonder if there is more to
this text than meets the eye.  Tags that are conformant to RFC 3066bis
are composed of subtags defined in the registry, and are indeed related
to other content -- the written, spoken, or other natural-language
content being tagged as to language and variant.  The proposed text
could be interpreted to mean that the IANA Language Subtag Registry has
no meaning or significance.

I do not support adding this text to any of the three WG documents.

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