Subject: [Ltru] Submission: LTRU registry draft-05

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:02:52 -0700

Dear Editor,

Please find attached the fifth draft of the LTRU working group's document 'draft-ietf-ltru-registry' in text format. 

Best Regards,

Addison (for the editors)

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
http://www.quest.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 03:02:15 +0200

I would like to know if there is an objection to a privateuse format larger 
than 8 alphanum and to the use of "." in the privateuse field?
Thank you.
F. Charles.

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:18:23 -0700

Yes. That would break backwards compatibility with RFC 3066.

‎Mark

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:22:02 -0400

> than 8 alphanum and to the use of "." in the privateuse field?

That would prevent backward compatibility with RFC 3066, which is an
explicit goal of this revision.

So yes, there is an objection.

-- 
There is / One art                      John Cowan <[email-masked]>
No more / No less                       http://www.reutershealth.com
To do / All things                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With art- / Lessness                     -- Piet Hein

---

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:03:43 +0200

>Yes. That would break backwards compatibility with RFC 3066.

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.

would your thinking be the same for a "z-16*"? altuse field for example? I 
mean a new field?
F. Charles.

>â€ŽMark

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:18:06 -0400

> 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.

-- 
MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS
John Cowan   http://www.reutershealth.com   [email-masked]

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 23:46:04 -0400

SG Dot-Root scripsit:

> 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?

This update provides a whole bunch of tags which do not need to be registered
one by one, but all of them *could* have been registered in the past; there
are no "new" ones in that sense.  (The next revision will add genuinely
new tags, but only a minimal change to the syntax will be involved.)

> What happens if I use "x-dotroots.harold-IE-cork"? ("dotroots" makes 8 
> alphanum)?

You won't be compliant.

Why not use a hyphen instead of the dot?

-- 
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes    John Cowan <[email-masked]>
of a creatific thinkerizer.             http://www.reutershealth.com
   -- Peter da Silva                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:40:24 +0200

My computer just destroyed all my out mails for three months. I do not know 
if you received my response?

>Why not use a hyphen instead of the dot?

Because this would be confusing.
I would only like to pass a comment. "x-fr.comment-sn". If the current 
libraries read this as "x-fr-sn" I am happy. The new libraries can use the 
comment. The only need is to say "subtags are finished with dot".
F. Charles

---

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:53:57 +0200

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

1. the subtags are not registered. This means that users will not act upon 
them if they have not private libraries knowing what to do?
2. if the subtag format is not 8alphanum the existing general purpose 
libraries will fail.
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).

This means that if RFC 3066 bis says the private field is free. That it 
ends with "-". And that one could understand "." as internal separator.

Then "x-fr.comment-sn"
1. existing libraries will result in error. I am not bothered. RFC 3066 bis 
will probably make everyone to update.
2. new libraries will not result in error and some may read and use it as 
"x-fr-sn".
3. private libraries will be able to use "comment".

?
F. Charles.

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:08:54 -0400

> will probably make everyone to update.

On the contrary.  One of the design points for RFC 3066bis was that existing
libraries would continue to function just fine, because every tag valid
under RFC 3066bis was at least potentially valid (that is, would have been
valid if properly registered) under RFC 3066.

-- 
The first thing you learn in a lawin' family	John Cowan
is that there ain't no definite answers		[email-masked]
to anything.  --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird

---

From: SG Dot-Root <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:41:49 +0200

>valid if properly registered) under RFC 3066.

There can be conflict only for old libraries using new applications. But 
the old libraries do not support the new features. So if I want to use the 
new features I need the new libaries.

I have another way to address the need: to register in the applications 
registry one tag per language and per comment: 7500 * comment nr. With ISO 
639-6 20.000 * comment nr. This may quickly make billions of entries. All 
this just to stay compatible with a non used experimental format?
F. Charles.