Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
The other possibility is to say whatever the sources say. I didn't note that you modified the source descriptions in some way. Please don't do this without a rule for it in 4646bis.
I didn't.Having said that, I would really like the WG to come to a FORMAL decision, certified by a co-chair, on this whole Description thing. We should not have text in 4646bis that talks about the Description field being non-normative, only for identification purposes, only to indicate the meaning of the subtag, able to be broadened, etc., and at the same time be required to keep the exact ISO-originated reference name, warts and ambiguity and weird acute accents and all. I'm not sure I even care any more which path we choose, but we cannot have it both ways.
If that's the case they should most definitely say so. But I don't see the point, just copy what the sources say as long as it's an assigned code-point for a character.
Don't forget about variant subtags registered by ietf-languages. Those don't have "sources" in the sense you're thinking of.
Good that we didn't introduce an MES-1 restriction for 4646 :-)
We didn't add any restriction, and there was a reason for that. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ RFC 4645 * UTN #14 _______________________________________________ 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.