Subject: [Ltru] Re: 4646(bis) typo / issue

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:51:48 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> If it is never needed and nobody proposes it, no harm is done.
>
> We've seen that the rule how grandfathered crap can mutate into 
> redundant tags was harmful in the latest registry.  Eliminating that 
> possibility by reserving the last five "pseudo-variants" gaulish / 
> guoyu / hakka / lobjan / xiang is attractive - if the reservation 
> prose is less convoluted than the existing mutation prose.  As a mere 
> implementation detail it's less interesting.

In what way was the registration of variants 'boont' and 'scouse' 
harmful?  What or who was harmed?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:56:11 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> What or who was harmed?

The integrity of the registry until it's fixed.  But it helped
me to find a bug in my XML-converter, a reference to a variant
subtag must not collide with a language subtag of length 5..8
like the hypothetical "gaulish".

Adding underscores to _all_ non-primary subtag IDs (not only
those starting with a digit) would work until 4646bis-00.  But
not for 4646bis-01, where the Preferred-Value of an extlang can
be a language.  Odd situation:

Language subtags of length 3 use the same namsepace as extlang
subtags.  Language subtags of length 5..8 do NOT use the same
namespace as variant subtags.  For case insensitive operations
they also don't use the namespaces of region or script subtags.

Apparently my registry converter needs its own minimal parser
to get this right... <sigh />