Subject: [Ltru] Re: Draft-4645bis-01 posted to Web site

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 06:43:57 -0700

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

>> IANA put "frr" between "fr" and "fy" as part of the 2006-03-08 
>> update.
>
> Odd, why did they use another logic for frs ?  They can pick any style 
> they like, alphabetically, chronologically, "input order" (= 4645 
> style), or something else, but using different styles for subtags frr 
> and frs submitted simultaneously is surprising.

I'm sure it was an error.  Everyone seems sure it was an error.

>> RFC 4646 Section 5.1 does not require any particular order to the 
>> subtags in the Registry, except that all records of a given type must 
>> be together
>
> Yes, but didn't you want to use the same "input order" as for 4645 
> again, length before alphabetical ?  Keeping the old subtags in 
> whatever order you found is also okay, and changing it would screw up 
> "diffs".  But IMO you're also free to sort the subtags per section, 
> because it's a replacement registry, not an update.

Last month when I asked about it again, in preparation for writing 
draft-4645bis-00, I was told that I should not try to correct these. 
John Cowan pointed out that a process can load the entire Registry into 
memory and sort it however it sees fit.  I think this was in the 
September 20 time frame.

> If you don't want that anymore it's fine, I was just curious why frr 
> and frs ended up in different parts.

It isn't what I want, but it's what the group agreed to, and it wasn't 
important enough to me to continue fighting about it.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 

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