Subject: [Ltru] Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments)

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:59:22 -0700

Brian Carpenter asked Mark and I privately:

--
I'd really like to have the authors' and shepherds' comments
on section 2.2 before casting my ballot on this. Did the WG consciously
decide that en-*-*-*-en was valid, and distinct from
en-*-*-en? 
--

en-*-*-*-en is not functionally distinct from "en-*-*-en" (or en-*-en, en-en, or en-en-*, for that matter).

It is possible to construct a language range syntax that uses RFC 3066bis's syntax. In such a syntax the position and number of wildcards would be significant. However, the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru