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

Re: [Ltru] ABNF for grandfathered/irregular



Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

As long as each grandfathered tag has a preferred value that is a non-grandfathered tag, everything's fine. Even "i-default" could be given that status - when you look at the RFCs where it is used, "und" would work just fine. And "i-default" would still be valid, and perfectly acceptable for use in those RFCs.

I still don't see the point of this at all. Even if we could have a regular tag for every single grandfathered tag -- even the oddball cases like "i-default" and "zh-min" -- we still can't wish away the grandfathered tags. They are still legal for tagging, and parsers still have to recognize them, regardless of whether they are canonical or not.

Therefore, when Mark continues:

However, this all pales in priority to getting 4646bis out the door.

I concur very, very strongly, and suggest that we not reopen this Pandora's can of worms unless some truly new information is provided.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
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.