> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx] > This means that the legitimate URI tag: > "tags:x-tags.org:constable.english.x-tag.org" > must be accommodated into the format > "x-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-etc." instead of > "0-x-tags.org:constable.english.x-tag.org" As I mentioned in another message, Mr. Morfin submitted a request to the WG that the syntax in the draft be loosened to permit tags of the form indicated, and that the consensus of everyone else in the WG was to reject that request on the basis that (i) it would result in backward incompatibility with existing processes designed to conform to RFC 3066, and (ii) it was possible to create a scheme for semantically equivalent tags without breaking compatibility with RFC 3066. > Peter takes a loosely applied chancy non-exclusive proposition, to > make it the significantly constrained exclusive rule of the Internet > instead of correcting it and following the ISO innovation (ISO 639-6 > and ISO 11179) as directed by the Charter. This permits him to > exclude competitive propositions following or preceding that innovation. The LTRU charter makes no reference whatsoever to ISO 639-6 or to ISO 11179. As I have explained elsewhere, Mr. Morfin's suggestion that the draft is incompatible with ISO 11179 while his alternative would be conformant is far from valid. Finally, I have not excluded competing propositions; I was one voice among many that rejected a request to permit "." and ":" in the syntax, and to my recollection no other concrete proposal wrt syntax, let alone an overall system of metadata elements, was submitted by Mr. Morfin to the WG. > With the trick above: length and character wise a private tag is a subtag. > .... and the lack of explanation of how billions of machines will > know about the daily updated version of his 600 K file, without > anyone paying for it, but me and the like. It is completely unclear on what basis Mr. Morfin is suggestion that billions of machines will need to update "my" (?? I did not create it!) 600K file on a daily basis. There is no indication or likelihood that the language subtag registry proposed by this draft will change with a frequency approaching anything close to daily. Indeed, it is entirely likely that it will change rather less frequently than the RFC 3066 registry was likely to change. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf