[Ltru] Re: Dates A and B redux
Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Sun, 07 August 2005 13:10 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E1kvM-00055K-Fm; Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:10:44 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E1kvI-000559-2H for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:10:42 -0400
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA05606 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1E1ktr-0000Rq-5z for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:09:11 +0200
Received: from c-180-160-143.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([62.180.160.143]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:09:11 +0200
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-143.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:09:11 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:04:47 +0200
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <42F606EF.718C@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <20050806161024.EHOZ5577.mta7.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org> <003701c59abb$80821de0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-180-160-143.hh.dial.de.ignite.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Dates A and B redux
X-BeenThere: ltru@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Doug Ewell wrote: > That's Date A. Doug, I _know_ what "date A" is, I was here, remember ? From my POV it was the most conservative choice, there were no language tags before 1995, nobody had a reason to use anything deprecated before RfC 1766 - unless he had an old copy of ISO 3166-1 region codes without the updates. Rough consensus was to be paranoid about this hypothetical case => ready, "date A" is 1988. > Changing the rules about dates would require changing > the text of draft-registry and/or draft-initial. If the rules are clear why did you ask ? I'm fine with your strategy to use "date B" everywhere. Addison did not propose another strategy for the "ILSR", his remark was about the future function of "Added" dates for all registry updates after "date B". > Claiming that a given subtag was added to the registry > 10 or 20 or 30 years ago before the registry was even > created is also ugly IMHO. The idea is fine - we've used past modifications in the sources to simulate the effects on an imaginary registry started at various potential "date A". But in practice getting these "Added" dates right would be too difficult. And one day before the end of the second dress rehearsal it's also too late for such major "nice to have" changes. > Date B has already been picked. Read item 2 in Section > 2 of draft-initial, and then go back and read it again. If you don't want answers you don't like beause you already have your own answers don't ask. I only told you what I'd do about it, delay "date B" as long as possible, but not beyond potential major changes of the sources, if it causes inconsistencies with the "last called" texts. > If that date is delayed until GG and IM and JE are added > to ISO 3166-1, then those subtags will be added to the > initial registry. It is as simple as that. It's not, it could invalidate parts of your chapter 4, in the "worst" (= best) case completely. It would also affect the text in 3.3 point 11 in 3066bis. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] Old country codes (was: Re: LTRU submissio… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Dates A and B redux (was: Re: Second WG la… Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Old country codes Frank Ellermann
- [Ltru] Re: Dates A and B redux Frank Ellermann