Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
This point is at the intersection of a couple very contentious issues. One is the question of whether the canonical form is stable over time, and the other is the macrolanguage [recte: extlang] problem. This language reflects a compromise that I think leaves all parties to the debates equally unhappy. The reason for the "SHOULD" is that there are situations where NOT doing the mapping would be operationally preferable.
As one of the combatants in the extlang debate, I agree that the current language was the best (or perhaps the "least bad") that we could agree upon. "hak" is Officially Preferred, but "zh-hak" is at least tolerated -- more so than using "iw" instead of "he", a typical deprecated/preferred case. Messing around with this language would probably send us all back to square 1. I hope we don't go there.
-- 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
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.