Subject: [Ltru] signed languages support

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:16:55 +0100

I am reported an off-topic debate on RFC 3066 Bis and RFC 3066 Ter 
support of signs has started on RFC 3066 language-tags obsoleted IANA 
registry related ietf-languages@alvestrand.

- I suppose all thoses who shared in it will soon be suspended, so we 
should transfer the debate to WG-LTRU where it belongs.
- I rose that point several times as well as the basic and networked 
modes. I was told by the consensus RFC 3066 Bis is multimode. I 
accepted the decision of the Chair, even if we all know it is not.
- I am not sure that the ietf-languages@alvestrand.,no discussed 
positions match the filtering as presently discussed by this WG. If 
the alternative is between written Bambara and Signed French, what 
will be the result for me? I am not sure filtering considers the 
impact of the mode?

Maybe could we stop discussing the flaws of RFC 3066 Bis, even as 
calling their fixes "RFC 3066 Ter features". Let first permit RFC 
3066 Bis to be implemented in having the filtering Draft completed. 
Let accept BCP 47 is descriptive and written mode oriented. We will 
consider signs, songs, computer, basic, network, SMS, stenographic, 
etc. moldes another day. Does that sound reasonable?
jfc

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru