Subject: RE: [Ltru] Proposed addition after introduction (was: Jersey JE andGuernsey GG Country Codes)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:14:12 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn

> I'd like to get a hum on this proposed addition.

I oppose. 

Like Martin, I agree with the sentiment about equal opportunity, but see
that kind of statement belonging somewhere else than this technical
specification. Also, I consider some of the statements wrt ISO to be
factually wrong.

I might accept some wording to the effect of "This spec provides for
creation of language tags, but makes no claims as to what language
variations should be distinguished by such tags or what non-technical
policies should be applied to their usage." But I'm not hereby proposing
specific text or asking anyone else to provide it.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:23:49 -0700

Hi -

As Co-chair:
Ok, I think we have a rough consensus to not make the full-blown addition.
I think there is broad agreement that language tags do not "define"
languages in any prescriptive sense, so editorial changes that make
this clearer would be ok.

As a technical contributor:
I think the following passges merit purely editorial fixes to reduce
the likelihood of misreading:

Section 2:
-   The language tag always defines a language as used (which includes
+   The language tag always refers to a language as used (which includes

Section 2.2.5:
-   variations that define a language or its dialects which are not
+   variations that characterize a language or its dialects which are not

 ("-" marks current wording; "+" marks proposed replacement.)

Randy