JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote: >> Speaking only for myself, I wasn't confused at all. Randy's blanket >> term, "Jefsey's provisos," was sufficiently vague that I had to >> actually go back and read the post(s) in question, which I had >> skimmed over before. After reading them, I clearly understood >> Jefsey's various suggestions, and was confident of my opposition to >> them. > > you increase the problem rather than clarifiy it. What you oppose is > my bundled personal positions (plural). Not different questions (each > singular). But may be this is a normal way of thinking in this group, > since the main problem it faces is of same nature: the bundling of XML > parameters. Would you prefer if I express my opposition to the points individually, rather than bundling them together? Very well: > 1. if an Englist or French (or other languages to be added) name for a > language is missing, it will be accepted as non fully documented until > a name is provided (a IANA procedure and Reviewer will have to be > designated). I oppose this because of the needless overhead involved in blacklisting a registry entry as "non fully documented" because it has not been retrofitted with both an English and a French name. As others have indicated, many of the ISO 639-3 names are neither demonstrably English nor demonstrably French. This is not an issue for ISO 639-1 and -2, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49 because those standards already have French names; however, the existing variant subtags and grandfathered and redundant tags would all have to be retrofitted. > 2. the same IANA registration could only be entered in English or > French. It will be up to the French/English Reviewer to make sure the > name in the missing language(s) is provided. I oppose the concept of appointing a separate French/English Reviewer to enforce the registration (and presumably the linguistic suitability) of dual names. The descriptions of items proposed for registration have always been the responsibility of the person submitting the proposal, and should continue to be so. If you had other provisos besides these two, please send them to the list so I can consider them as well. I hate asking people to re-send things they have already sent, but there has been a huge amount of traffic on this list lately and I may have missed something. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.