Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

Doug wrote:

> 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.

I think we pretty much worked this out a few years ago... See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06482.html
But as I said in my previous message, I am not quite ready yet as it will
involve some flagging of the data.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 14 July 2009 05:54
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:
> Anomaly inupcoming registry)
>
> 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  ^
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>