Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
I can think of a few reasons why we don't want true junk in the Registry (not to imply that M. Périard's request is junk, nothing of the sort), but this one doesn't sway me.Then please come up with an alternate junk-filtering-rationale statement.
Most of us could look at the list of constructed languages on LangMaker or invented writing systems on Omniglot, and agree that at least some of those don't belong in the Registry. I wish I could come up with a less Potter Stewart response than that.
I do think something along the lines of "used by at least one individual or group outside the direct sphere of influence of the inventor" would be reasonable.
If we're trying to get some request to refine his proposal to make it convincing in a case in which it borders on junk, and that person starts asking why we care, we should be able to offer crisp answers rather than start debating that point.
I agree.
I predict that the frequency of these kinds of requests will *increase*, not decrease or remain stable.
I agree. But it will positively skyrocket if there is a perception that almost anything will be accepted.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.