Subject: [Ltru] Re: Survey on inverted vs. uninverted names

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:40:53 -0800

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> replied to Frank 
Ellermann:

>> P.S. to Mark:  While RFC 4646 doesn't allow to narrow subtags, the 
>> source standards are still free to do whatever they wish, and the 
>> registry is forced to play along (for an unmodified code).  We could 
>> also pretend that "fy" always was "Western", and its description was 
>> incomplete, but that's cheating.
>
> Actually, a good part of what we did with 4646 was to insulate 
> ourselves from instabilities in ISO. Now, we may just decide that we 
> just don't care about stability regarding non-modern language 
> variants. But if we do so, we should at least make that a conscious 
> decision to do it, and document it so that people know what to expect 
> of BCP 47 regarding stability.

Frank does have a point about the priority we are placing -- at least at 
the present time -- on ensuring that the Description fields in the 
Registry match the source standard.  When ISO changes the name of one of 
their language code elements, so far we have always made the 
corresponding change in the Registry.  Frank is saying that this is not 
the "insulation from ISO instability" that the RFC promises, and I 
understand where he is coming from (which is different from saying it is 
good or bad).

--
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: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:59:04 -0800

Hi -

As a technical contributor....

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:40 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Survey on inverted vs. uninverted names
...
> understand where he is coming from (which is different from saying it is 
...

However, we should keep clear in our minds the roles of [email-masked]
and [email-masked]   I think it would be very reasonable
for the former to rather mechanically populate the registry, based on
ISO data, which would mean using whatever is current in the ISO data,
or possibly a merge of that data with the current registry data.

It would be also reasonable for [email-masked] to decide
what (if any) policies should govern [email-masked] 's
handling of ISO changes.  At the same time, it would also be quite
reasonable of [email-masked] to add description and
commentary elements when appropriate.  I don't think this list
needs to anticipate all the possible cases; I think we can
trust the good folks on [email-masked] to recognize
when such additional descriptions / commentary would be needed.

Randy