JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I would like to understand why http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition, conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?
I've read this draft and see nothing wrong with it. Having a fixed, unambiguous way to parse the elements of a language tag is certainly a good idea. What specific current practices do you think it conflicts with?
I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by some, as long as it does not exclude more specific/advanced language identification formats, processes or future IANA or ISO 11179 conformant registries.
The grammar defined in the draft is already flexible enough. -- David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf