Subject: [Ltru] Well-formed processors (was: Re: Ticket #45: updated editor's copy available)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 06:54:33 -0600

(Subject line changed since this is no longer about #45)

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

>   Extension authors are strongly cautioned that many (including most
>   well-formed) processors will be unaware of any special relationships
>   or meaning inherent in the order of extension subtags...
>
> I did not know that we classified *processors* (of any kind) as being
> well-formed or not...

I am sure this is shorthand for "processors that check whether a tag is 
well-formed."  It seems like a harmless rhetorical jump to me.  In 
theory it could be changed to "many processors, including most that 
check tags for well-formedness, will be unaware" but I don't think it 
should be necessary to fine-tune the text to this extent.

As an aside, I believe the current text consistently uses "extended 
language subtag" or "extlang" to refer to one concept, and "extension" 
or "extension subtag" to refer to the other, so despite the potential 
for confusion mentioned by Karl, I don't think there is any actual 
ambiguity here that should affect interoperability.

--
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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 07:21:59 -0600

I wrote:

> so despite the potential for confusion mentioned by Karl,

Should be "Kent."  Sorry.