Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Encoded-words have several characteristics, one of which is
> limited length (in octets). That has two implications w.r.t.
> script:
> 1. specifying script explicitly is unnecessary; it can be
> determined from the charset (always specified in an
> encoded-word) and the specific octets of the encoded text
> (ISO-8859-1 is latin script, KOI8 is Cyrillic, etc.).
It's not that easy for UTF-8. We need the ugly scripts after
Unicode replaced the old charsets (the "implicit script" info
of most legacy charsets). Where that's irrelevant you can of
course use language tags without script, the draft encourages
"taggers" that more is not always better, quite the contrary.
> 2. an encoded-word has limited space available.
[...snipped...] Yes, we calculated "the most perverse tag" in
all dimensions especially for 2231, I knew that you would kill
the draft otherwise... ;-) Compare figure 7 in chapter 4.3.1.
> without a concrete specification for negotiation, it is not
> possible to fully assess the proposed syntax changes.
Maybe you can convince the PTB to delay the "last call" until
the matching draft is ready, but I doubt it. And I disagree
that it's impossible to judge the "data structure" (tags) now,
the syntax is rather simple.
For a general idea what the matching draft probably will be
you could read draft-ietf-ltru-matching-03.
>> the WG Chairs and the responsible AD did a very good job.
> As an affected party, I disagree.
Then let's agree to disagree and / or be more specific: 3934
is rather new, and it was used, all parts of it incl. appeal.
IMNSHO it would be desastrous to abuse RfC 3934 as some kind
of killfiling-by-rough-consensus.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf