Subject: Re: [Ltru] In defense of private-use (was: Re: rfc4646bis-18 example in 2.2.7)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:28:23 -0700

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> Good. I think Doug has a point, in that in practice private use
> tags haven't hurt interoperability too much. But I guess this is
> because enough people understand private use (sub)tags are a bad
> idea. And that may be (in part) because we use the (scary) language
> we do. So I agree that we should leave the language as it is.

Good.  Again, I did not propose changing any text; I was arguing against 
Randy's suggestion to change text that has been in the draft for half a 
year.

--
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 

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:16:42 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] In defense of private-use (was: Re: rfc4646bis-18example in 2.2.7)
>

As a technical contributor...

I have not suggested that we change the normative language regarding
private use subtags.  The suggestion was to remove an example on the
grounds that that example didn't meet the criteria set forth for
use of private use tags.  Though that point is disputed, Addison Phillips
suggested a replacement example, to which both John Cowan and I favorably
responded.

Randy