Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

My bad: I saw "4647" and "Obsoletes: 3066" and misread the former as "4646".

The user experience would be much better, IMO, if the note at the top named the RFCs, "... is a concatenation of RFCs 4647 and 5646", and if this were HTML (as the URL suggests, btw) with links at that top of the page to the start of each RFC.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn at mindspring.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:04 AM
To: Peter Constable; IESG Secretary
Cc: ltru at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> To: "IESG Secretary" <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>; <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
> Cc: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Action: Conclusion of Language Tag Registry Update (ltru)
>
> Note: searches for BCP 47 don't quickly take one to RFC 5646. In particular, one result is this link
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
> 
> which take one to RFC 4646.


No, it does not.  The first line below the list of links says:
[Note that this file is a concatenation of more than one RFC.]

The RFCs there are 4647 and 5646.
It looks fine to me.

Randy