I'm pretty undecided about which is best, but I don't "buy" the buffer argument. RFC4646 already allows quite long language tags (once you consider x- and other possibilities). - Shawn -----Original Message----- From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:41 PM To: Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft updated > > > > > With Kent apparently signing off on the changes as well, and > with most > > > other issues resolved, I'll be putting together a draft- > 4645bis-06 in > > > the next few days. > > > > Just letting you and the WG know that I continue to *strongly* > favor > > making "zh-cmn" and "zh-yue" (and the rest) the preferred forms, > and > > "cmn" and "yue" the pre-deprecated ones. > ... > > I'm inclined to agree, but am trying to keep an open mind. > I don't agree. Notice that this would cause you to gain a subtag. This is the only time this happens (all other mappings cause you to either have the same number of subtags or lose some). Among other things, one might face buffer length issues (some programming languages don't like the buffer to increase in size). Addison _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ 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.