Subject: [Ltru] Re: Submission: draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:38:28 -0800

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Have read the document in question and all looks well (other than I 
> would have used "has been" and "is" rather than "was" in a number of 
> places).

I've probably been inconsistent in that regard, so I'd appreciate 
specific pointers.

I should point out, though, that in an early draft version of what 
became RFC 4645, I wrote about how these rules "are" applied and those 
records "are" added to the initial Registry, and someone (I don't 
remember who) countered that it should be "were" since I was describing 
the one-off procedure by which the initial Registry was compiled.

> However, I find the following type of record format in the Registry 
> (for Áncá and other records with diacritics) totally unacceptable:
>
> %%
> Type: language
> Subtag: acb
> Description: &#xC1;nc&#xE1;
> Added: 2008-01-01
> %%

This is really a comment on draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-02, Section 3.1.1 
("File Format"), since I insist on having RFC 4645bis follow the rules 
and grammar for the Registry that are laid down in RFC 4646bis.

Personally I greatly prefer UTF-8, and find it hard to believe that in 
2007 (or even in 2004, when I joined this project) the awkward, ugly 
escape sequences are somehow safer or more portable than UTF-8.  But 
that's what we have been told, I guess by IETF.  (I should note that 
IETF is stil unable to reach consensus on allowing UTF-8 in RFCs, partly 
because someone always manages to twist the issue into "allow PDF as a 
definitive format for RFCs so we can include beautiful, elaborate 
circuit diagrams.")

If we are going to reopen this issue, I suggest we reopen it from the 
RFC 4646bis POV and let the resulting decision filter down to 4645bis.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:24:18 +0100

On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:38:28PM -0800,
 Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 52 lines which said:

> Personally I greatly prefer UTF-8, and find it hard to believe that
> in 2007 (or even in 2004, when I joined this project) the awkward,
> ugly escape sequences are somehow safer or more portable than UTF-8.
> But that's what we have been told, I guess by IETF.

I want to emphasize (as I did today on ietf-languages) that the debate
is open at IETF, see Internet-Draft
draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01. Tim Bray said more or less what you
say in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg00447.html

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss if you want to
participate. 

> (I should note that IETF is stil unable to reach consensus on
> allowing UTF-8 in RFCs, partly because someone always manages to
> twist the issue into "allow PDF as a definitive format for RFCs so
> we can include beautiful, elaborate circuit diagrams.")

AFAIK, it's a problem with the very conservative RFC editor, not with
IETF. Now that the IETF has its own set of documents, the IONs, we
will see if UTF-8
works. (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ion-format.txt:
"However, UTF-8 may be used")

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:21:45 -0800

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

> is open at IETF, see Internet-Draft draft-klensin-unicode-escapes-01. 
> Tim Bray said more or less what you say in

The stand taken by IETF in 2005 was responsible for the decision the 
LTRU WG made, and wrote into in RFC 4646, and hasn't overturned yet.  If 
the debate is now open at LTRU, then we'd better resolve it *right now*, 
at the RFC 4646bis level.  If not, then there's no change to be made in 
RFC 4645bis.