Subject: Re: [Ltru] grandfathered to redundant?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:47:00 -0600

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> In Section 3.4 (iana stability) we have rules for transitioning
> grandfathered tags to redundant. Recently there was a thread on the
> list suggesting that the remaining regular grandfathered list is
> basically closed and cannot become redundant because of various other
> rules we have in place. Should we modify the text to say this? (It
> would be nice to get rid of extraneous rules for a change).

Gaulish keeps popping up in discussion.  I would hate to see us put a 
clause into the draft that says "cel-gaulish will never, ever become 
redundant" and then ietf-languages decides they Absolutely Must make as 
many GF tags redundant as possible, and registers "gaulish" despite the 
clause.

We could add this wording, but I'm not sure what the practical benefit 
is, or whether anyone outside this list really cares whether the list is 
closed.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:48:27 -0400

> many GF tags redundant as possible, and registers "gaulish" despite the 

Not while *I'm* alive, kiddo.

Grandpa

-- 
John Cowan    [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Half the lies they tell about me are true.
        --Tallulah Bankhead, American actress
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru