At 03:16 09/07/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
(2) "Private-use subtags have no meaning outside of a private agreement between parties. They may also be given different meanings by different private agreements between those or other parties. Thus they SHOULD NOT be used wherever there is alternative, and they SHOULD NOT be used in content or protocols intended for general use. Private-use subtags, like all other subtags, MUST conform to the format constraints specified in the ABNF. What do you think of that?
Dear Mark and Randy,I submit that this is not a very important change in text, but it translates an important change in the spirit of RFC 3066. This is a true lack of spirit retrocompatibility. I have nothing against that. To the contrary the abandon of strict retrocompatbility permits interesting other innovations. But I do not want to suggest them without being supported by a consensus, otherwise Randy will say I rise closed issues.
There are 57 folks on this list. I suppose that we could say that this proposition is supported by a consensus if 29 (50% +1) supports it. Either this proposition is adopted by consensus (I support it), strict retrocompatibility is forgotten: then I will propose something everyone could agree with to replace x-tags (but which would be opposed now on the grounds of retrocompatibility) - or it is not and we will continue with x-tags.
So please every supporter of this change, and/or opponent to x-tags as we want to use them rises hand or humms.
Those who supports x-tags, IMHO you can support Mark's text because if strict retrocompatibility is abandonned, the solution I would propose could even be better. But there is no need to work on it if there is not a real consensus.
Thank you.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.