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

Re: [Ltru] A radical proposal (was: Re: extlang & deprecation)



Re: Deprecated.

I happen to work for a large company that regularly gets "beat up" in the media for not using the preferred forms of standards.  Those doing the ranting usually don't care if there is a "good reason" or not for using the non-preferred form.  They also aren't going to bother with minor details like reading the definition of a well-known term like "deprecated".

Since its unclear which form will end up being preferred or not, I don't really know whether we'd end up using the preferred or form or not, but I don't think its appropriate to stick other people in that position whether or not the standard works for us.

- Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:46 AM
To: Mark Davis; Doug Ewell
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] A radical proposal (was: Re: extlang & deprecation)

1.  Provide an explicit definition for the word "deprecated" in BCP 47, something on the order of "There is another tag or subtag that means the same as this one, but is preferred, and validating processors will translate this subtag into the preferred equivalent.  But nobody will beat you up or make you register with the police if you use the non-preferred one instead."  Make sure other text in the draft does not contradict this.

<AP> -1 I don’t think we need to define ‘deprecated’, the current thread notwithstanding (more below). </AP>

_______________________________________________
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.