Randy Presuhn scripsit: > Disagree. The current procedure would require us to add a "deprecated" > to the newly deprecated tag. Since the old (new) tag is already in > the registry, and means the same thing, no further action is needed. Then we wind up with both the original tag and its temporary replacement marked deprecated. That's undesirable. > That is precisely why the original RFC 4646 text is better. If followed > carefully, MM would have a Preferred-value of BU, and the canonical > form would never have changed. Unfortunately, the BU->MM change was grandfathered in, so MM is the canonical value at present. So if MM were to be deprecated by ISO in favor of BU, we wind up with Deprecated fields for both tags, making it decidedly unclear which the canonical form is. -- MEET US AT POINT ORANGE AT MIDNIGHT BRING YOUR DUCK OR PREPARE TO FACE WUGGUMS John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.