Put in the first paragraph (about the material having been deleted). Leave out the rest. As an RFC this document will be of interest only to digital archaeologists, the meat of the registry having long since been picked from its bones. The material being suggested doesn't do anything that draft-registry doesn't do (except specifying how to identify the original set of records). A better way to do that might be to write: -- The File-Date record of the initial registry was the date of publication of this document. -- That is all of the information one actually needs to cover all the text suggested previously :-) Addison Addison P. Phillips Globalization Architect, Quest Software Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Doug Ewell > Sent: samedi 24 septembre 2005 21:14 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Note to RFC editor in initial registry > > This is a unified response to several messages, so don't anyone jump to > any conclusions until you've read the whole thing. > > Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote: > > > 3. The remainder of this section specified the initial set of subtags > > for the registry. This material was deleted on publication of this > > memo, to avoid any confusion with the registry itself > > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]. > > What is the role of the reference [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] here? In > this context it looks like a pointer to the registry, which is not true. > Draft-initial is already chock-full of references to draft-registry > without adding another non-essential one. > > I suggest deleting the reference, and also adding the word "potential" > before "confusion," though I'm not dogmatic about the latter. > > > Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value prior > > to YYYY-MM-DD. Note that [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] Section 3.3(1) > > specifies that this field must not change after registration. > > Other fields in these records may subsequently be modified, > > subject to the restrictions in Section 3.4 of > > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]. > > I still would like to avoid specifying the literal date. If we do, > we'll have to be really, really sure we don't miss updating this in the > closing moments. > > > RFC EDITOR NOTE: the remainder of this section is to be deleted upon > > publication. > > Good so far. (Lest anyone forget, this is whole purpose of this > exercise.) > > > I think that all is really needed is the first paragraph and the note. > > I'll go along with the second paragraph if folks think it's really > > useful and necessary, but I'd be happier without it. > > I'm fine with removing it, because I don't think there should be any > need to re-create the initial registry. The current one is what's > interesting. > > Later: > > >> ... How about: > >> > >> ... with "Added" field values no later than the date of > >> publication of this document. > > > > I like this a lot. > > Good, if we have to have this paragraph at all. > > >> Because of this, it may not be possible to use a future version > >> of the Language Subtag Registry to reconstruct an exact copy of > >> the initial registry contents. > >> > >> Comments? > > ... > > > > If folks think we need any text on reconstruction, I think this > > addition would be an important one. (I'm still not convinced that we > > need to say *anything* about reconstruction, though I'm willing to go > > along with it.) > > Agreed. > > Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote: > > > That would work even better. And I too would be happy with just the > > one paragraph. > > In a private message, it was also suggested to use "records" instead of > "subtags," and I agree with this (some records are for tags, not > subtags). > > OK, so here's what we have now: > > <proposed-text> > 3. The remainder of this section specified the initial set of records > for the registry. This material was deleted on publication of this > memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the registry itself. > > <!-- possible second paragraph --> > <!-- > Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value no later than > the date of publication of this document. Note that Section 3.3 (1) of > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] specifies that this field must not change after > registration. Other fields in these records may subsequently be > modified, subject to the restrictions in Section 3.4 of > [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]. > --> > <!-- alternative possible second paragraph --> > <!-- this assumes an initial registry File-Date of 2005-12-01 --> > <!-- > Each of these initial entries has an "Added" field value prior to > 2005-12-02. Note that Section 3.3 (1) of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry] > specifies that this field must not change after registration. Other > fields in these records may subsequently be modified, subject to the > restrictions in Section 3.4 of [I-D.ietf-ltru-registry]. > --> > > [RFC EDITOR NOTE: the remainder of this section is to be deleted upon > publication.] > </proposed-text> > > Comments? > > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru at ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.