[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