Subject: RE: [Ltru] Date of deprecation (was: Re: Registry in record-jar format)

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:28:40 -0700

Compatibility. You can set your tag processor to produce or validate tags as at a certain date. It also might help people updating their implementation figure out what has changed since the last time they looked (since all of the information is in the 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 Doug Ewell
> Sent: dimanche 3 avril 2005 14:53
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Date of deprecation (was: Re: Registry in record-jar
> format)
> 
> What is the perceived benefit, for language tagging purposes, of
> including a field that indicates the date a given subtag was deprecated?
> 
> -Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California
>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:11:54 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> Compatibility. You can set your tag processor to produce or validate
> tags as at a certain date. It also might help people updating their
> implementation figure out what has changed since the last time they
> looked (since all of the information is in the registry).

I'd never thought that someone would want to generate tags that were
valid as of some past date, but not necessarily as of today.  But yes,
the additional date field would certainly make that possible.

As for figuring out what has changed, with all the talk about record-jar
vs. XML, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned making incremental deltas
available -- say, in "diff" format.  That would certainly solve the
problem of having to re-download a 600 KB file.  Agreeing to do such a
thing would be the important point; the exact mechanism would be a
detail.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:07:24 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Date of deprecation (was: Re: Registry in record-jarformat)
...
> thing would be the important point; the exact mechanism would be a
...

Actually, I think you raised the question in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00302.html

If this stuff is published via http, then, as a technical contributor, I'd
suggest that WebDAV (e.g. RFC 3253) might be worth considering as
a means to accomplish this goal, if there is agreement that it should be
a goal.  Note that this mechanism doesn't depend on the choice of XML,
plain text, record-jar, or whatever.

Randy