Frank Ellermann wrote:
Martin Duerst wrote:i-hak -> zh-hakka zh-hakka -> zh-hakI think the following would be preferable:i-hak -> zh-hak zh-hakka -> zh-hakYes. It would also eliminate the only pointer containing a "non-variant". We discussed this in the last round, I don't recall the arguments against it. Maybe the more convoluted 4646 pointers were inspired by UnicodeData.txt (?)
I don't understand. Why is it important that a pointer contain a variant?
This would avoid the need for repetition when calculating the preferred value.It also simplifies pointer checks, there's never a danger of A -> B -> C -> A, if A *_must_* point to something that has no further pointer.
But we don't want to enshrine that in the rules, do we? I don't think it is necessary to require that pointers have only a depth of 1 in the registry.
Addison -- Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ 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.