Subject: [Ltru] Re: non-written content

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 09:26:38 -0800

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

>> Though of course she would be free to do so, as a technical 
>> contributor I think this information is on the very edge, if not 
>> beyond the edge, of what it makes sense to convey in "Tags for 
>> Identifying Languages".
>
> Yes.  But "audio" etc. as _variants_ are IMO a horrible idea, while 
> extensions could do.

I was trying to propose a solution to Karen's often-stated problem, even 
if it is not the solution she prefers.  I thought this would be 
preferable to the all-too-common approach of "do nothing and hope the 
problem, and/or the requestor, goes away."

Regarding extensions, I have no faith that this potentially very useful 
mechanism will ever get off the ground.  There is significant inertia 
against them.

> RFC 4646bis should have a clear MUST NOT about generic variants, and 
> if that means to scrub the "fonipa" cruft, so be it.

If ietf-languages decides to "scrub" (i.e. deprecate) the "fonipa" and 
"fonupa" variants that were registered less than three months ago, I 
think we should go through the drafts and remove all instances of the 
word "stability" and replace them with "volatility."

What we are working on is a standard, used and relied upon by 
applications worldwide.  It is not a sandbox for us to play in.

--
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