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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:47:11 -0600

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> The problem here is as I expressed previously? the LSR can reject 
> these requests---it is what having an expert reviewer is *for*. But 
> requiring a rejection of something rejected by ISO 639 is tantamount 
> to saying you can?t register any such subtags. We might was well take 
> the mechanism away altogether.

I agree, and think we are getting carried away with making sure nothing 
can ever possibly, imaginably go wrong in corner cases that have never 
caused any problems for us or ietf-languages before.

> I would propose a slight alteration of Alexey?s text to ensure we do 
> this right:
>
> --
> 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.
> --

I am quite happy with Addison's proposed text.  It leaves open the 
possibility of registering these things; to shut the door on them 
altogether would be a technical change.  It gets rid of inappropriate 
wording (I never liked "frowned upon" either).  Let's ship it, please.

--
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