Subject: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:04:43 -0700

Is there any sort of consensus for or against John Cowan's proposal to 
add a "Language-Type" field that captures the ISO 639-3 classifications 
(extinct, historic, etc.)?

I've added this data to the Registry contents in draft-4645bis-01, and 
I'm writing text that explains the exact process for populating these 
fields; this can easily be removed if the WG ends up rejecting the 
proposal.  But since I'm getting ready to release draft-01, I'd like to 
know which way the wind is blowing on this.

--
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

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 12:42:13 -0700

I would not add anything to 4645bis until you see it in 4646bis.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:59:41 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I'd like to know which way the wind is blowing on this.

Weather report Hamburg:  Stick to the 4646 ABNF, maybe put
interesting details found in the new source into comments.

Frank