Subject: RE: [Ltru] date B = 2005-01-01

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:52:30 -0700

Date B applies to ISO codes, not 3066 tags. What one or another of us think of registered tags is beside the point: most of them actually are junk. If they are redundant junk, so much the better. If they are grandfathered junk, it won't make a difference. Whatever kind of junk it is, the registry should capture the state of the RFC 3066 registry rather than picking and choosing.

There *is* an appeals process, you know, if you think that the consensus was declared prematurely. Personally, I couldn't care less about those tags. I just hope to get this work done quickly so we can quit having to worry about 3066 and its registry.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
> Sent: mardi 12 avril 2005 09:27
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] date B = 2005-01-01
> 
> After the intruduction of several nonsense MO-tags in the 3066
> system I propose to use 2005-01-01 as "date B" and ignore all
> dubious 3066-tags introduced after 2005-01-01 (if they turn out
> to be "redundant" this point is moot).
> 
> Further I want to express that I do not trust anybody involved
> in the registrations of MO-languages.
> 
>                            Bye, Frank
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 19:56:10 +0200

Addison Phillips wrote:

> Date B applies to ISO codes, not 3066 tags.

Maybe we could just use the grandfathered tags _as published_
by IANA, that's "date en-GB-oed" = 2003-07-09 at the moment.

> What one or another of us think of registered tags is beside
> the point: most of them actually are junk.

Your co-author proposed the MO-junk.  Abusing these tags as a
precedence could result in much more junk tags.

> If they are redundant junk, so much the better.

Sure, I still think that we don't need redundant junk tags in
the future registry.  Recommended prefixes "zh-Hans ; zh-Hant"
for region MO are certainly not what we want, pt-Latn-MO might
be dubious, but it's not illegal.

> If they are grandfathered junk, it won't make a difference.

IBTD, only two of them are MO-junk, and all new grandfathered
tags that are really useful would be a PITA (deprecate them,
add a canonical value, the works).

> the registry should capture the state of the RFC 3066
> registry rather than picking and choosing.

Okay, <http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/> _as is_ at
date-B (= whenever Doug creates a new draft registry, the last
is the initial registry).

> There *is* an appeals process, you know

I've already fired my "one appeal per period" [TBD] 2004-09-22,
my personal rule, therefore no 2nd net suicide for the MO-junk.
It's only ugly if they turn out to be "grandfathered", but not
critical.
                            Bye, Frank