Frank Ellermann scripsit:
> If it's a rather cryptic process with very few experts who simply can't
> know each and every "orq"-case this outcome might be not good enough,
> and adding a second filter with an open process behind it could help.
The whole point of publishing a draft list was for expert correction,
which it got. Both Anthony Aristar and I independently determined
that the conlangs I mentioned did not belong in the standard, and
Anthony said their presence in the draft was an oversight.
> Apparently some including John, Peter, and me feel that it's relevant,
> but we still have to figure out how to do it.
I'm not sure what this means. We do know how to do scopes and types;
the issue is whether we want to.
> There always will be errors, and _we_ invented the rules not allowing
> to fix errors in the registry. As soon as "orq" is in it stays in.
It's not in yet and it won't be.
> By proposing <extlang> with detailed rules before it existed, the 4646
> syntax is supposed to work also for 4646bis registries.
We stabilized the syntax of language tags. We stabilized the record-jar
syntax. We stabilized certain fields (and not others). We did not
stabilize the set of fields as a whole.
--
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
--Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________
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.