Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:39:53 -0600

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:

>> -- At the time this document was created, there were no examples of 
>> this kind of subtag. Future registrations of this type are 
>> discouraged: an attempt to register any new proposed primary language 
>> MUST be made with ISO 639. Proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-JAC are 
>> unlikely to meet the criteria for primary language subtags and are 
>> thus unlikely to be registered. --
>
> - (minus)
>
> This seems redundant and over-explained. If being registered with ISO 
> is close to being a criteria in itself, then saying that those that 
> are rejected by ISO are "unlikely to meet the criteria" undermines 
> that very point.

Disagree.  We need all that wording to clarify that "being registered 
with ISO" is not quite a criterion in itself.  It is possible, 
conceivable, imaginable that a primary language subtag could be 
registered in the LSR without being accepted for ISO 639 -- it's just 
very unlikely.  Saying that it's not possible at all, or implying that 
by removing this wording, would be an unwanted technical change.

--
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

---

From: Leif Halvard Silli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:15:49 +0200

> by removing this wording, would be an unwanted technical change.

Alexey's text makes it clear that one could get registered with 
IANA without being registered with ISO. I cannot see that 
Addison's text make that any clearer. I see that you have the 
independence of the LSR in mind, but I don't get the same message 
as you from Addison's text.

What does "are unlikely to meet the criteria" mean? Does it mean 
"are not likely _to have met_ the criteria, but we will do an 
extra check, of course"? In other words: Is ISO acceptance a 
quality control, only? That is the impression I get from the text. 
Or is ISO acceptance actually a _qualifying_ factor in itself? 
(And 'qualifying' is of course not the same as guarantee of 
registration.) If so, then this is better expressed in Alexey's 
text, IMHO.

But may be I care too much about ISO. If the rest are in favour of 
this text, then I'll not stand in the way.
-- 
leif halvard silli

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:34:42 -0600

Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:

> What does "are unlikely to meet the criteria" mean? Does it mean "are 
> not likely _to have met_ the criteria, but we will do an extra check, 
> of course"? In other words: Is ISO acceptance a quality control, only?

The criteria of ISO 639 RA/JAC might not be exactly the same as the 
criteria of the Reviewer and ietf-languages.