Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
IANA put "frr" between "fr" and "fy" as part of the 2006-03-08 update.Odd, why did they use another logic for frs ? They can pick any style they like, alphabetically, chronologically, "input order" (= 4645 style), or something else, but using different styles for subtags frr and frs submitted simultaneously is surprising.
I'm sure it was an error. Everyone seems sure it was an error.
RFC 4646 Section 5.1 does not require any particular order to the subtags in the Registry, except that all records of a given type must be togetherYes, but didn't you want to use the same "input order" as for 4645 again, length before alphabetical ? Keeping the old subtags in whatever order you found is also okay, and changing it would screw up "diffs". But IMO you're also free to sort the subtags per section, because it's a replacement registry, not an update.
Last month when I asked about it again, in preparation for writing draft-4645bis-00, I was told that I should not try to correct these. John Cowan pointed out that a process can load the entire Registry into memory and sort it however it sees fit. I think this was in the September 20 time frame.
If you don't want that anymore it's fine, I was just curious why frr and frs ended up in different parts.
It isn't what I want, but it's what the group agreed to, and it wasn't important enough to me to continue fighting about it.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________ 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.