Section 3.1.4 of the current draft has this wording: ---------------- Each 'Description' field MUST be unique, both within the record in which it appears and for the collection of records of the same type. ---------------- I'm not positive I understand the intent for the second requirement, unique "for the collection of records of the same type". It sounds like that's saying that, if (say) a language record has a description field with the value "foo", then no other language record can have a description "foo". If that's the case, then what about cases such as the records for the language subtags 'jv' and 'jw', both of which have a description "Javanese"? Would the following revised text be an improvement? ---------------- Each 'Description' field MUST be unique within a given record. Also, each 'Description' field must be unique across the collection of records of the same type with the following exception: if a particular 'Description' field occurs in multiple records of a given type, then one of those records MUST be for a subtag listed in all the other records as Preferred-Value. ---------------- I think that covers the Javanese, Hebrew and such cases. (I still hope we don't one day down the road find it overly restrictive should, e.g., two 639-2 entries each have multiple language names, one of which is common to both.) 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.