Subject: [Ltru] rfc4646bis-18 example in 2.2.7

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 02:21:54 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

In section 2.2.7
   For example: The Unicode Consortium defines a set of private use
   extensions in LDML ([UTS35], Locale Data Markup Language, the Unicode
   standard for defining locale data) such as in the tag "es-419-x-ldml-
   collatio-traditio", which indicates Latin American Spanish with
   traditional order for sorted lists.

The example isn't an appropriate example, as it is not a language
tag, but rather locale data.  I suggest removing the example,
as well as the corresponding informative reference UTS35.

This is not a show-stopper comment before handoff to the IESG,
but I hope it would be considered as part of the IETF last call.

Randy

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:11:27 -0800

That was discussed at great length earlier. We did want to use a concrete
example. And the tag  "es-419-x-ldml-collatio-traditio" IS a valid language
tag, and is used as such.
Mark

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:38:49 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rfc4646bis-18 example in 2.2.7
>

As co-chair...

In the discussion (issue MD 4 in February of 2008) Randy Presuhn and Peter
Constable objected to the proposal.  Mark Davis and Addison Phillips 
argued for it.  My reading of the discussion was that there was indeed
agreement to get rid of the old text (SIL example), but I don't see
consensus to add the LDML example.  As a technical contributor, I think
we should be extremely wary of doing anything that might be perceived as
encouraging the use of private-use subtags in the slightest, due to their dire
consequences for interoperability.  However, since I'm a party to the
discussion, I'd like co-chair Martin to make the call.

Randy

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 08:11:06 -0800

The alternative is to use a completely contrived example. I have no objection to doing so, except that contrived examples are must less useful than real ones. The SIL example we replaced is now completely obsolete (this document replaced the need for it). 

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:39 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group