Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1018] Add Macro-Language field

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:48:54 -0700

Hi -

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In message
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg01919.html
> the addition of a MAcro-Language field was suggested.

Randy, ltru co-chair

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:55:56 +0200

>> the addition of a MAcro-Language field was suggested.

Covered by #1017 Required-Prefix, I'm not hot about its name.

Originally it was your proposal to prepare everything as far
as possible for 3066ter, #1017 is a consequence of this plan.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 14:49:24 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:55 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1018] Add Macro-Language field
...
> as possible for 3066ter, #1017 is a consequence of this plan.
...

You're reading a bit much into what I said.  The context was
issue [psg.com #1007], summarized as "Although ISO 639-6
will not be ready in time for this work to
reference it formally, there were statements that it would be
desirable to structure the ABNF so that the impact on
implementations would be minimized, if ISO 639-6 develops
as is currently anticipated."

Adding additional fields goes a lot further than future-proofing
the tag ABNF, in my opinion.

I think we should not add fields unless the WG is confident that
(1) they will be necessary and (2) we can add them without
delaying our work.  If there we come to a quick consensus that
"Required-Prefix" will the right tool for the job, cool.

Randy