Peter Constable scripsit: > Now, let me propose an elaboration of #3 for adoption. This elaboration > is captured by three points: > > (a) that both X-Y and Y are freely allowed, > (b) that at the level of the language production X-Y and Y must always > be considered a match (regardless of which is part of a tag or of a > language range), but I don't understand what (b) means, particularly in contrast with (c). The whole point in allowing both is that in some contexts X-Y works better with naive matching, and in some contexts Y works better. > (c) that how X and Y compare in matching is a separate consideration > (perhaps with some suggestions but ultimately left to implementations). I assume that this proposal is still in the context of only allowing a small number of macrolanguages (plus 'sgn') as Xs in X-Y? -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot cowan at ccil.org that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith http://ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta _______________________________________________ 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.