> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Shawn Steele > +1 on reaching a resolution. Ditto. > Unlike Mark, I think that some new ideas have surfaced since this was > discussed I also think there have been some new ideas, though I'm not saying there's been anything compelling us to change past decisions. (What is for me significant new thinking is (a) that it may be useful in some scenarios to declare a language attribute for an info obj with two levels of specificity for cases like zh, and (b) that zh-xxx provides a way to do that using 4646 syntax, meaning that it would be supportable in any BCP47 app.) > and I understand Karen's frustration with original > discussion. Like Mark, I'd like to get this thing done because I have > deadlines and products that will depend on whatever's decided here. +1 > One thing I'm very certain of is that zh != cmn and the standards > shouldn't make an unnecessary correlation that doesn't exist in > practice. Very strong +1. I feel we should not be stipulating or even suggesting that zh is the same as cmn, or that cmn should be deprecated. Saying that, in general, zh content is most often Mandarin is fine. > I > want to make sure its something everyone in the industry can feel OK > about... > I'm also disconcerted that Karen feels this effort may not address her > needs because I don't want a disconnect between A/V standards that > might be useful for on-demand content and other software on the system. > Everyone's needs certainly aren't the same, but information is getting > more and more connected and these things show up in odd places. Very strong +1 Peter _______________________________________________ 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.