Hmm... That's "as an editorial issue and not a technical issue". Addison Addison P. Phillips Director, Globalization Architecture http://www.webMethods.com Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group http://www.w3.org/International Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Addison > Phillips [wM] > Sent: 2004å12æ18æ 16:49 > To: ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Lilly > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP > > > We (Mark and I) welcome the last call process and timelines and > the feedback these generate. That's the whole point of having a Last Call. > > The -CS subtag issue doesn't strike me as a technical issue with > the draft. The draft stabilizes the meaning of subtags. There is > a process in the draft for setting the initial (and thus stable) > meaning of the -CS subtag. While it probably matters which value > (Czechoslovakia or Serbia and Montenegro) that is selected, it is > only of editorial interest to the draft itself... unless what > Bruce is trying to prove is that stabilizing the meaning of the > subtags is a Bad Idea, which I don't think is his point. > > I'm willing to entertain a debate about which meaning ought to be > selected. But really it ought to be recognized as not an > editorial issue with the draft and not a technical objection. > > Best Regards, > > Addison > > Addison P. Phillips > Director, Globalization Architecture > http://www.webMethods.com > > Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group > http://www.w3.org/International > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > > ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: 2004å12æ18æ 15:41 > > To: Bruce Lilly > > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP > > > > > > > > I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of having some > > > > total limit (except for the late date for the proposed change). > > > > > Earlier feedback would have been had if there had been > > > some announcement of the proposed considerable changes > > > on the ietf-822 mailing list, or via an IETF WG > > > charter. > > > > This sort of thing is exactly why we last call non-WG documents > > for four weeks > > rather than two. Less review is assumed to have occured and this > > may well mean > > the document is in some sense "less done". > > > > So, while I know of no problems caused by inordinantly long > > language tags, now > > that the issue has been brought up using this opportunity to add > > a max length > > restriction seems like a very reasonable thing to do. > > > > > > However, we > > > > got considerable pushback on having RFC 3066bis make any > > previously valid > > > > RFC3066 tag be invalid > > > > > Entirely appropriate. And the proposed draft would > > > invalidate the meaning of the valid RFC 3066 language > > > tag "sr-CS", which is currently in use. > > > > > > and any length restriction would do that. > > > > > If it makes you happy, you can exclude private-use > > > tags from an explicit limit. > > > > I would only suggest doing this if it helps us reach consensus. > > > > Ned > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf-languages mailing list > > Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-languages mailing list > Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf