Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
As a technical contributor...(1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text. Unless operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.
Of course any "real" updating activity would entail necessary changes to the existing text. I'm not talking about that when I say "tweaking." I'm talking about the endless lily-gilding, adding more and more caveats and examples for existing edge cases and inserting new sections to cover the most extreme corner cases, almost as if, as you put it, the BCP were to be implemented by automatons instead of breathing humans.
As co-chair...(2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a rechartering of the WG that you *would* support?
I wouldn't mind seeing supporters of ISO 639-6 put together a serious proposal that maintains compatibility with BCP 47 matching logic, keeps duplicate-tag redundancy to a minimum, AND adds value. I'm not sure it can be done, and I won't support adding 639-6 if it can't be, but I think it deserves a chance in the marketplace of ideas. So far we haven't seen any proposal that accomplishes all three goals.
-- 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.