[hats on] On 2009/06/11 0:21, Phillips, Addison wrote:
I oppose making these changes, not because Debbie’s text wouldn’t make things clearer, but rather because the point of this paragraph was precisely that it did NOT forbid attempts to register primary language subtags. Each such request would be judged on its own merits. But the WG wanted to give clear-enough guidance that it was unlikely that such a registration attempt would succeed.
It also seems to be my recollection that we didn't want to forbid attempts to register primary language subtags, but wanted to make clear that the chances of a direct registration would be extremely small.
The way I judge the current consensus is that we have a rough consensus against any changes on this issue, despite some recent textual proposals. I will close this issue in this way tomorrow unless we get additional input and evidence. I instruct the editors to produce the next version of the draft without changes unless they hear from me otherwise.
Please note that1) This issue did not come from Alex (our AD), but from a third-party reviewer. Alex, as far as I understand, wants to make sure that we discuss it and either reconfirm what we have done or adopt some changes along the lines proposed. 2) Introducing new features (such as a timespan,...) shouldn't be done at this stage unless absolutely necessary.
Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.