On 20:59 03/07/2005, Debbie Garside said:
> The 3066bis scheme represents a narrowing of the 3066 grammar for language > tags. Unlike 3066, it represents a full description of every subtag, > including those unassigned by 3066bis. It will not be possible to create a > new, different, grammar for language tags without breaking compatibility > with 3066bis. I am not talking backward compatibility, I'm talking forward extensibility, and retrieval for future maintenance and update procedures in a particular industry.
Debbie,Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to that, except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47) This not possible, the net is not to be narrowed but scaled.
I have a question: Addison puts already too many information in his tag (too many, because they can have unexpected conflicts). Why do you want to add more? You do not have conflict in adding specialised metatags. What is actually the odd idea is an ABNF langtag when an XML or other open format could have solved all these problems much more simply?
jfc _______________________________________________ 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.