At 08:25 08/10/02, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >I think Mark actally expressed that registering "2003" as a subtag with the meaning "language reform linked to year 2003" would satisfy the uniqueness requirement. > >Further down in this letter, you say that you disagree with him (and those of us who agree - at least I and Martin) in this. [technical hat on] Just to clarify, I'm not taking much of a side on this issue. I can live with any solution, from having duplicate variant records distinguished by prefix to totally prohibiting variant reuse for even slightly different purposes. [chair hat on] I think I have seen very strong opposition to having multiple records with the same variant subtag, for implementation reasons, and nobody fighting for multiple records as such. Addison and Mark, unless this is already covered in -17, can I ask you to draft some language covering this (and only this) point? I have not yet seen any consensus on the details of the content of that single record. My current tendency, given that we are in a repetition of WG Last Call, and that we have discussed this issue before, is to leave it as it is in -17. >While OTOH, using year for language reforms, is very inviting. It could encourage registration. Should that be avoided? This brings up the general issue of how we might be able to shorten discussions about registrations with clearer guidelines. If you have any ideas on this, please tell us. However, my current understanding would be that clearer guidelines could go one way or another, and that in the absence of any new consensus, we will have to leave it at what we have with -17. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ 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.