Subject: RE: [Ltru] Tag perversity text revised... (#944)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:31:07 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Mark Davis

> While this is better, it still unnecessarily distinguishes between
private
> use and extensions. If it is ok to truncate
> 
> en-US-a-abcdefg-abcdefg
> to
> en-US-a-abcdefg
> 
> then it makes just as much sense to truncate
> 
> en-US-x-abcdefg-abcdefg
> to
> en-US-x-abcdefg
> 
> There is no reason for the x subtags to be all or nothing, and the
extension
> subtags not to be.

At least for extensions, since the meaning of extension subtags is
defined elsewhere, we have no idea if changing

en-US-x-abcdefg-abcdefg
to
en-US-x-abcdefg

has had a neutral effect, a mildly negative effect, or a disastrous
effect. Since *this* spec and protocols that conform to it are
responsible only for interpretation of stuff *other than* the extension,
I would have thought the safest this to do if any part of an extension
needs to be removed is to remove the whole extension.

I think I'd rather be responsible for some downstream process getting no
info when some was expected than for it to get info that implied
something significantly different than what was intended by the original
sender.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:00:25 -0700

But the same reasoning then goes for private use, so we should take the same
approach to that: either remove the whole subtag sequence, or just remove
trailing elements that don't fit.

I guess my feeling is that we notify extension writers and private use users
in the spec that truncation can occur. Because of that, they can account for
possible truncation, and organize their own subtags to detect it. For
example, one could have the convention that the last subtag end with, say,
0.

And if I were an extension writer, I would rather that *some* information
get through than that all be removed, given that I can detect any case of
truncation. And the same goes for private use.

And, this approach also has the advantage of being simpler for all those who
don't care about extensions or private use.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 15:31
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Tag perversity text revised... (#944)

On Behalf Of

private
extension

en-US-x-abcdefg-abcdefg
to
en-US-x-abcdefg

Peter Constable