Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #45 (AD comment #12) SHOULD in section 4.5 on preferred value mappings

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:03:02 -0600

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> This point is at the intersection of a couple very contentious issues. 
> One is the question of whether the canonical form is stable over time, 
> and the other is the macrolanguage [recte: extlang] problem.  This 
> language reflects a compromise that I think leaves all parties to the 
> debates equally unhappy.  The reason for the "SHOULD" is that there 
> are situations where NOT doing the mapping would be operationally 
> preferable.

As one of the combatants in the extlang debate, I agree that the current 
language was the best (or perhaps the "least bad") that we could agree 
upon.  "hak" is Officially Preferred, but "zh-hak" is at least 
tolerated -- more so than using "iw" instead of "he", a typical 
deprecated/preferred case.  Messing around with this language would 
probably send us all back to square 1.  I hope we don't go there.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ