Doug Ewell wrote: > One of the big objections that people had to switching > to UTF-8 was that the non-ASCII characters might get > munged in transit. This passage was added specifically > to calm those nerves. I'm aware of these "people", you're talking about John and me, and John cried "doom". While I hate UTF-8 for the registry I never doubted that IANA and reviewer will figure it out. IIRC John's "doom" was also about folks discussing on a mailing list, and for that part I still support it. Even Martin is sometimes annoyed with his own MUA, I hope I finally convinced my W2K that nothing is wrong with his encoding. > People criticized the fact that 4646 didn't specify > where the completed forms could be found. Yes, because IANA didn't collect and publish them. You fixed that, and I found the pages on their site without looking into 4646bis. IANA is free to reorganize their Web site, and then old URIs in an RFC are a royal PIT* (Just an example, I try to post on register at uri.arpa ) > We didn't want chains, but even more so, we didn't > want to break the stability of the Preferred-Value > field. IOW we got it wrong, let's fix it while we're at it. "Stability of Preferred-Value" makes no sense, the X -> Z shortcut for X -> Y -> Z can't cause harm. > Regarding cycles, I think if you want to rely on > IANA and the LSR to get things right rather than > adding MUSTard, you surely ought to give them (or > at least me, as Co-Designated Expert) credit for > detecting and avoiding cycles. But it was you who said that "un-drepecating" isn't allowed. Maybe you'd also say that adding Y -> X to a given X -> Y is at is, because the X can't be "un-drepecated". For the hypothetical FX example if we'd end up with FX deprecated in favour of FX it's obvious, but longer cycles are harder to spot. > This was added in direct response to fears expressed > during LTRU 1.0 (which I did not share) that people > would abuse private subtags. He-who-must-not-be-named will do what he likes, it's a waste of time to tell the world how it has to judge such inventions. > Addison and Mark (like me) are editors, not authors You *insist* on being an editor, for Addison that's a bit fictitious, isn't it ? Inventing countries isn't what I consider as editorial freedom. For 4646 we had Randy's list of tracked issues with his decisions, but that was his list, it's quite possible that I hit an old issue because I forgot it / changed my mind / was never happy with his decision / whatever. > It's always fair to ask why something is there or how > it got there, but the answer might well be "because > everyone insisted on it N months or years ago." If I wanted X months ago, and now want "not X" without saying that and why I changed my mind, it's sad, but not intentionally bad, just point it out. In cases such as "UTF-8 instead of NCRs" I want tons of "not X" because the former X was designed to work with NCRs. Frank _______________________________________________ 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.