Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
I found the following Descriptions with comma: Inversions (should be uninverted):
I independently came up with the same list as Kent, and (unsurprisingly) agree with it.
(At least two of those could use a shorter, more commonly used, name...)
That's not my role as editor of 4645bis. Someone can always go to ietf-languages and request registration of, say, just plain "Iran" or just plain "Tanzania."
Unclear (maybe just remove the comma, or uninvert both):Description: Cuneiform, Sumero-Akkadian <--- but compare Description: Cuneiform Luwian
The first is a script; the second is a language. I can't make any assumption as to whether the usage of "Cuneiform" is parallel in these two names. I think it would be maximally consistent to uninvert "Cuneiform, Sumero-Akkadian" and leave "Cuneiform Luwian" alone.
The following are not inversions:
I agree, and believe that the uninverting exercise should not extend to the descriptions of variant subtags and grandfathered and redundant tags, which were requested and registered on ietf-languages and did not come from external standards.
-- 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 _______________________________________________ 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.