Randy Presuhn wrote: > Forgive me for being dense, but neither of those two messages > says how it would address issue #900, the question of subtag > 200. The #900 stuff is old. See subject, I was talking about #1026. For #900 you know that Doug and I want the 200 to be removed. I'm not sure what John, Mark, and you wanted to do about 200. > I have great sympathy for anyone trying to make sense of > these stream-of-consciousness postings, and am baffled by > your moving it into the thread for issue #1026, unless > you're going to argue that there should be a common > underlying principle. |>>> Are you arguing FOR or AGAINST removing region subtag 200? |>> Let Doug remove it. But I'm worried about the TL -> XX |>> bug, we discussed this for weeks, why is it still incorrect |>> in -04 ? |> Could you point me to the specific text that was proposed? |> The best way to ensure that an i-d addresses your concerns |> is to propose specific text. I only answered your question, and because I knew that your question and my answer don't belong to #900 I even changed the subject: #1026 (was: [psg.com #900] remove region subtag 200) Now I change it again stripping the old (was: ...) part. Bye. _______________________________________________ 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.