Mark Davis wrote:
My vote is that we do not constrain ourselves to follow precisely what is in the source standard. Our descriptions should be clear, unambiguous, and useful. Wherever the source standard description is such, we should follow it precisely. Wherever not, we should not be bound to it.
To play devil's advocate, I would argue that "Konkani (macrolanguage)" and "Konkani (individual language)" are all of those: clear, unambiguous, and useful. If you want to add "maximally concise" to the list, then there are a great many Description fields that would have to be re-examined as well.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://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.