Martin Duerst 2008-10-03 10.55:
At 13:25 08/10/02, Phillips, Addison wrote:
[technical hat on] I think that whatever text I have seen so far about semantics, meaning, 4-digit numbers for years, and so on, is either vague to the extent of being of no real use (two reasonable people can come to different conclusions based on the text in many cases) or is too specific, to reach consensus, tending in one or the other direction. Also, while there is in principle the hope that clearer direction in RFC 4646bis would make the work of ietf-languages easier, which would be highly desirable, I haven't seen any example where this would indeed be guaranteed. I therefore think that this is one of the points where we should stop adding additional language just to keep ourselves busy. [chair hat on] Unless I see some clear progress soon towards precise and consise text that addresses a clear need, I plan to close the discussion on further editing regarding this issue in a day or two, so that we finally can move on.
For progress/possible consesnsus, I propose that years should be reserved to "temporary" (in the meaning 'for the time being') revisions of an existing "thing".
I suggest that a romanisation is not a temporary change to an existing language and its norms (except in a derived way). But it may be a temporary version of an existing romanisation scheme. Thuse first should the kind of romanisation be mentioned in one variant tag, then in another subtag should the year come.
For the green book/white book example, one subtag should have the green vs white book. And a next subtag should mention the year.
-- leif halvard silli _______________________________________________ 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.