Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:47:25 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> I agree with the suggestion that a new M.49 numeric ID should not be
> registered immediately, but that some time be given to permit the ISO
> 3166-MA to add a corresponding entry, if they're going to take such
> action within a reasonable time. I'm not sure what that reasonable
> time should be; one year seems like a long time, but I don't know how
> much time they typically require.

I have no problem with the theory here, but I think if we wanted to
adopt such an approach, we would have to spell out the time frame rather
precisely.

--
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, 13 Jun 2005 19:47:49 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> If 003 is listed as "macro-geographical number" on their
>> page we need no ticket, it's then simply correct.  The
>> last time I looked at their page that wasn't the case.
>>
>> IIRC you (?) intended to ask them what this footnote is
>> supposed to mean, Web page typo or historic.  Bye, Frank
>
> Are we rat-holing again on the details of the draft registry rather
> than staying focused on the ID?

I see Randy assigning a ticket number to issues involving the initial
registry, and confirming that the draft registry needs to be ready soon
along with the registry draft.  So I thought this was a legitimate,
focused, and timely thread.  Before continuing it, though, I'd like
confirmation from a co-chair.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:48:15 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> A consensus on the position of the script subtag within the sequence
> of subtags was reached long ago. Further discussion at this time is
> not helpful when we need to be driving toward stability. I request
> that any further discussion of this topic cease immediately.

Another +1.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:48:46 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> There is such a thing as a verbal language expressed using signs; e.g.
> signed English. There may well be a need to have a tag to make this
> distinction. I think a variant subtag for this purpose would be
> satisfactory; e.g. "en-signed".

In fact, I think this should be one of the first variant subtags
requested.  It opens the door for sensible tagging of the 16 signed
spoken languages listed on Michael Everson's page, and possibly others.

> There can be varietal linguistic distinctions -- dialect -- between
> written versus spoken forms of a language, and some user may have a
> need for tags to reflect such a distinction. What must be understood
> is that this such a distinction between linguistic varieties is
> orthogonal to the mode of expression: verbal versus writing. Again,
> for the linguistic distinction, variant subtags are a reasonable and
> appropriate. For the distinction between modes of expression, Mark has
> pointed out that "Zxxx" can be used as a script subtag to indicate
> that the information is unwritten (hence assumed to be verbal).

What I don't understand about this whole discussion is why anyone would
want to use a script subtag -- 'Zxxx' or anything else -- for spoken
content in the first place.  It's not like script subtags are ever
required.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:14:32 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 7:47 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200
...
> confirmation from a co-chair.
...

If you check the issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ (password and user "ietf")
you'll see that issue #900 is indeed in the ltru-initial queue for issues
relevant to the initial registry.

The content of the initial registry is indeed fair topic for discussion,
and we can create new ticket numbers as needed.  To the extent that we
find ourselves "rat-holing" on the content of the initial registry,
as a technical contributor I'd react by saying that that would suggest
that the registry i-d isn't making its principles sufficiently clear,
and that perhaps a corresponding issue might need to be opened with respect
to the registry i-d to resolving the question that was causing discussion
of the initial registry to stall.

Randy, ltru co-chair