Subject: Re: [Ltru] Stabilizing the order of subtag fields

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:23:23 -0600

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> I agree, except for that I'd prefer to have the "Scope" field,
> when present, just after
>> >     Subtag (or Tag)
> (in both 4646bis and 4645bis).
>
> Not that it matters all that much, but I'd like to have it a
> bit closer to the Type and Subtag to make it a bit more prominent.

I was thinking it would be a good idea to keep the four mandatory fields 
(Type, Subtag/Tag, Description, Added) together at the top of each 
record.

The Scope field can certainly be useful (although the WG didn't think so 
the first time I proposed it), but it is informative, and it's not hard 
to argue that some of the other fields -- Deprecated, Preferred-Value, 
Prefix, Suppress-Script -- are just as important or more so.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:56:32 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
> (Type, Subtag/Tag, Description, Added) together at the top of each record.

No objection at all.

	/kent k