Subject: [Ltru] Re: Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:59:48 -0800

Stéphane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at nic dot fr> wrote:

>> It protects lots of implementers from having to support subtags that 
>> don't really get used.
>
> No implementer will "support" all the languages (not to mention the 
> other subtags) of 4646bis/4645bis. They will recognize them (parse 
> them correctly) but I do not imagine a program whose authors will 
> commit to do something useful with *every* language in the LSR?

I agree.  Many of these languages do not have a written form; more than 
400 are extinct.  I can't imagine any implementer feeling obligated to 
provide software support for every one of them: "Oh no, they split 
Northern Nambikuára six ways; now we have to come up with five new 
resource files for our Windows app."

I can think of a few reasons why we don't want true junk in the Registry 
(not to imply that M. Périard's request is junk, nothing of the sort), 
but this one doesn't sway me.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ 

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:09:07 -0800

> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]

> but this one doesn't sway me.

Then please come up with an alternate junk-filtering-rationale statement. If we're trying to get some request to refine his proposal to make it convincing in a case in which it borders on junk, and that person starts asking why we care, we should be able to offer crisp answers rather than start debating that point.

I predict that the frequency of these kinds of requests will *increase*, not decrease or remain stable.

Peter