John Cowan 2008-06-01 21.11: > Kent Karlsson scripsit: >> But I would like some firmer recording in the LSR of the fact that a >> code is a collection/family code (rather than relying on "languages" >> or "(family)" being part of the name, or just referring back to 639-5). >> Something like "Type: language collection" or similar. > > +1 > >> Pushing this a >> bit, macrolanguages should similarly be explicitly recorded as such >> (rather than just implicitly), by something like "Type: macrolanguage" > > I think that's just an invitation to error: it violates the DRY rule. Don't Repeat Yourself. However, if as Addisin proposed, this info should go into a separate Attribute field, then I can't see how the Macrolanguage attribute/information can be skipped. -- leif halvard sili _______________________________________________ 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.