> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org] > > (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). For X-Y-Z (Z being some string) and Y-Z, then X-Y-Z and Y-Z is always a match, but (c) whether X-Z and Y-Z are matched is a separate matter. > 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? That choice is left open. Part of what I was saying is that I think there's less potential need to consider cherry picking in that particular regard for #3 than there is for #1 or #2: since X-Y and Y equivalence would be guaranteed, then there really isn't a need to say up front that only a small set of macrolanguages are candidates for X. Peter _______________________________________________ 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.