Subject: Re: [Ltru] privateuse format

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:37:12 +0200

On 05:18 16/06/2005, John.Cowan said:
>SG Dot-Root scripsit:
>
> > I have a difficulty to understand this.
> > privateuse means that the programer knows that the reader will support his
> > subtag?
> > If the reader is not compatible, the programer will not use the subtag.
> > If it does not work it is his risk. But if it works he can do more.
>
>The semantics of a private-use subtag is not defined, but its syntax is,
>because the syntax of tags has been essentially unchanged since RFC 1766.

Then why to change if one cannot change?
My need is new, the RFC is new, my users are new, this is private for my users?
What happens if I use "x-dotroots.harold-IE-cork"? ("dotroots" makes 8 
alphanum)?
Thank-you.
F. Charles

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:05:13 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of SG Dot-Root

> If it does not work it is his risk. But if it works he can do more.

We're talking about private-use within the terms of this tagging
specification. When you start talking about custom software, you're
talking about a private-use tagging specification.

Peter Constable

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:26:53 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of SG
> Dot-Root

> I am sorry to insist. I do not understand the real purpose of a
limited
> format for open private use.

A consensus was established **LONG** ago that the syntax for 3066bis
would remain backward compatible with 3066. That applies equally to all
conformant tags, including private-use tags. This ensures that tags will
not break existing implementations. It's as simple as that.

> 2. if the subtag format is not 8alphanum the existing general purpose
> libraries will fail.

You mean, 1*8alphanum (one to eight); otherwise, yes. Hence the
rejection of what you are asking.

> 3. if the subtag format in the RFC 3066 bis is enhanced the only
impact is
> non-8alphanum will not fail on new general libraries (with no action).

No; the impact is failure of existing libraries. Unacceptable.

> 1. existing libraries will result in error. I am not bothered.

Then you are a lone exception to the consensus. The consensus will not
change, however. The vast majority here will insist on that.

Peter Constable