Subject: Re: [Ltru] requiring full prefixes

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:27:33 -0700

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

> I'm not sure why "und" would be used in place for what elsewhere (in 
> LTRU documents) is denoted by "*". (I'm not having an opinion (yet) as 
> to whether this functionality should be included or not, just an 
> opinion about using "und" as a standin for "*" syntactically,

I absolutely agree that we should not be using 'und' as a metasyntactic 
variable.  'und' is a real language subtag.

> but I do think this new syntax (whether via "und" or "*") is a bit 
> late in the making).

At this stage, any change more substantial than correcting "teh" to 
"the" ought to be considered late in the making.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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