<mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
Thanks for the comments. After thinking about it a bit, I made some significant edits, as follows.
I can live with this. I'm still concerned that we are not only opening the door to the type of year-abuse I've complained about, but stationing a barker outside the door to push people in. But by no means is it a syntactic or common-sense showstopper, as the idea of "two different '1901' subtags" was.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
<t>Records are unique by Type and Subtag: the registry MUST not contain two different records that have identical values for both Type and Subtag. Thus requests to assign an additional record of a given Type with an existing Subtag value MUST be rejected. For example, the variant subtag 'rozaj' already exists in the registry, so adding a second record of type 'variant' with the subtag 'rozaj' is prohibited. However, information <i>can</i> be added to an existing record. For example, the '1994' subtag variant record could have the prefix 'fr-CA' added together with a description of usage for a French Canadian spelling reform associated with the year 1994.</t> <t>Variant subtags that are used with multiple prefixes must have consistent semantics across those prefixes. Variant subtags MAY indicate an organization (including governments), such as 'ungegn', 'usbgn', or 'cisgost'. When applied to different prefixes, each would consistently refer to a variant as specified by that organization for those prefixes. For example, 'ungegn' could be defined as referring to a transliteration for any given prefix as specified by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN).</t> <t>Four digit subtags are reserved for indicating a year. Their meaning is in reference to some significant specification or other work associated with that year. It may have multiple prefixes: the particular specification for a given prefix MUST be clearly indicated in one of the Descriptions.</t>
_______________________________________________ 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.