Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

I incorporated the text as:

At the time this document was created, there were no examples of

this kind of subtag. Future registrations of this type are

discouraged: an attempt to register any new proposed primary language MUST be

made to the ISO 639 registration authority. Proposals rejected by the ISO 639 registration authority are unlikely to meet the

criteria for primary language subtags and are thus unlikely to be registered.

Addison

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:47 PM
To: Mark Davis; Randy Presuhn
Cc: ltru at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

(editor hat OFF)

That would be an inappropriate MUST, though. You “MUST scrutinize”?

The problem here is as I expressed previously… the LSR can reject these requests---it is what having an expert reviewer is *for*. But requiring a rejection of something rejected by ISO 639 is tantamount to saying you can’t register any such subtags. We might was well take the mechanism away altogether.

I would propose a slight alteration of Alexey’s text to ensure we do this right:

At the time this document was created, there were no examples of

this kind of subtag. Future registrations of this type are

discouraged: an attempt to register any new proposed primary language MUST be

made with ISO 639. Proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-JAC are unlikely to meet the

criteria for primary language subtags and are thus unlikely to be registered.

This gets us both the MUST with ISO 639 and avoids “frowning”, “the community”, or the Reviewer “scrutinizing” :-).

(editor hat ON)

If I receive support for the above text shortly, I will incorporate it prior to submission and will indicate that I think I have said support on this list.

Since it is late in the day, I expect instead that I will incorporate Alexey’s text. His text I show as having support from at least five people (Alexey, Mark, Leif, Randy, myself), with none opposed and only CE Whitehead proposing different text.

Addison

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.

It is an architecture.

From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Randy Presuhn
Cc: ltru at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

Me too. I'd be even happier with

proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
before they are registered with IANA.
=>
proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
JAC MUST be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
before they are registered with IANA.

The proposal should not try to predict what the LSR will do, it should explicitly tell the LSR what to do, and that means a MUST.

Mark

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 14:20, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com> wrote:

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> To: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:58 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

>
> I am not entirely happy with the resolution "wantfix" for this one, as
> this is a typical case of what can bring a DISCUSS from other IESG members.
> So let me try to suggest a specific text.
>
> OLD:
> At the time this document was created, there were no examples of
> this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are
> discouraged: primary languages are strongly RECOMMENDED for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> registration with ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
> before they are registered with IANA.
>
> NEW:
> At the time this document was created, there were no examples of
> this kind of subtag and future registrations of this type are
> discouraged: an attempt to register a primary language MUST be
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> made to ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> JAC will be closely scrutinized by the Language Subtag Reviewer
> before they are registered with IANA.
>
>
> I.e. the discussion about what the Language Tag Reviewer is going to do
> is not the point of this issue.

As a technical contributor...

As long as the understanding is that we don't need to go back and
wordsmith to cover the cases of indefinite delay, non-response, or
tweaks to the scope of what is covered by the registration in ISO-land,
I'd be OK with Alex's proposed text.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru