[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Ltru] A few points about the 4646 vs. -16 diff



A lot of the discrepancy results because wdiff can't synchronize properly,
and most of the rest is normal editorial fixup.  Speaking of which,
here are some mostly editorial things I spotted:

BNF:  In the current state of things, why are we allowing two extlangs
rather than one or three?  Allowing two makes "zh-min-nan" regular rather
than irregular, but surely that is a trivial point.  One is all that will
be allowed in non-grandfathered cases.  Three is what 4646 permitted.
I'd go for three, even though the capacity won't be used, just to avoid
a gratuitous change to the production.

In 2.2.4 and and 2.2.5, point 1 says "language" instead of "language,
extended language" for the tags which must precede the tag currently
under discussion.  In 2.2.6 it's point 9, in 2.2.7 point 3.

In the first of the three examples at the end of 2.2.4, why was
Switzerland replaced with Austria?

2.2.8: Probably no need to enumerate the regular grandfathered tags in
prose, since they are now enumerated in the BNF.

2.2.8 near the end: s/superseded/superseded by/.

3.1.2: in bullet point 'Type', add comma after "redundant".

3.1.2: s/MUST only appear/MUST appear only/.

3.1.2: s/will always follow/will always conform to/.

4.4.1: bring back extlangs here

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan at ccil.org
'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale.  --Greg Baker
_______________________________________________
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.