Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry in RDF/XML format.

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:34:56 -0700

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

> We could thus define that the record-jar registry uses a \uxxxx (or
> similar) syntax to get the same effect in the registry as using a
> Unicode encoding. In fact, we should probably define the that values
> outside the range U+0000..U+007E use \u escaped hex syntax.

None of this is relevant unless we also do away with the requirement to
convert all descriptions to ASCII (Section 3.1).  Should we be
discussing that first?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:46:49 -0700

Misha Wolf <Misha dot Wolf at reuters dot com> wrote:

> I think that derivate registries are only plausible if they
> are obtained through automated transformations from the normative
> one.  This makes the inclusion of any additional information
> (eg names in other languages) difficult, though not impossible.
> Such additional information would have to be held separately and
> merged (automatically) with the transform.
>
> Anything else (ie human tampering) is asking for trouble.

I agree 100% with Misha.

All of the various "alternative" formats I've generated so far -- 
record-jar, two flavors of XML, the HTML version on my Web site, and the
C++ header file used in my generator and validator -- are generated
programmatically from the normative version, which is currently
vertical-bar.  Judging by everything I'm hearing, that will change soon
and record-jar will become the normative format.  At some point I'll
change the conversion programs (those that are still relevant, anyway)
to read RJ instead of vertical-bar.

Of course, this is just what I'm doing during the WG process.  What IANA
does, once it's in their hands, is up to them.

Update: With no objections so far, it looks like the Wednesday update
(the first RJ version) will incorporate all the points in my post of
March 29, except that region code 200 (Czechoslovakia) will *not* be
removed (but 172 will be).  If anyone has other suggestions, please try
to send them by 13:00 UTC Wednesday.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:38:46 +0200

>does, once it's in their hands, is up to them.

No. This is to us to specify. In the IANA consideration part.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 07:40:13 -0700

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

>> Of course, this is just what I'm doing during the WG process.  What
>> IANA does, once it's in their hands, is up to them.
>

Can we specify *how* they build the alternative-format registry files?
If so, great.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:32:05 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:40 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry in RDF/XML format
...
> Can we specify *how* they build the alternative-format registry files?
...

Yes, I we could do that, but that would be a normative part of the
document via the IANA considerations section, even if what is
thereby generated is considered "informative".

I suspect that the IESG would want to see a pretty good rationale
for having IANA generate technically redundant representations of
the registry content.

Randy (as process-aware contributor)