Hi - Instead of a bunch of rhetorical questions, how about fleshing out a specific counter-proposal, if you think the current proposal is so intolerably bad? > From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> > To: <ltru at ietf.org> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:12 PM > Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey > > Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Let's finish this thing. > > What do you _expect_ if the 831 + 832 problem showed up after > date-B ? Or the hypothetical new 888 ? Wait for ISO 3166-1 > codes how long, forever ? That's what the draft -04 says now. > > Or just list 831 + 832 because they came before date-B, and in > the case of 833 we're absolutely sure that it's old. Does it > block a possible future GG + JE ? Does it also block a future > IM ? Apparently that's what the draft -04 says. > > We really should get this right, and IMHO we can get it right > today (2005-06-12 GMT). And I really like to hear what you'd > _expect_ in these cases. As long as the algorithms and registry data produce a single result for the question "how do I tag language X in its Jersey variety", I really don't care whether the resulting string contains dashes and digits or letters and in what proportion. > On the new (private) "IETF golden rules" list they have it as > the principle of the least surprise. I know it as "is there a > high astonishment factor ?" plus "then don't implement it". Prior to this WG I thought Guernsey was a kind of cow, and Jersey was near New York City. I'd still be astonished if my web browsey offered either for a language preference. :-) Seriously, if it did, I still wouldn't care whether the resulting tags were alpha, numeric, or mixed. Randy _______________________________________________ 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.