- From: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 21:03:25 +0100
- To: ietf-types@uninett.no
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com> wrote in message <01HX6C9585U29BVL0H@INNOSOFT.COM>: > If there's even the slightest chance that multiple three letter code schemes > will exist in the future then the S-nnn approach seems like the way to go to > me. The I-S-nnn approach is fully consistent with the current RFC 1766. Is a revision of the RFC justified, only to save 2 bytes? > In summary, the only thing here that "sounds empty" to me is the notion that > its acceptable to have two different sets of language tags in different IETF > work items and that its acceptable avoid revising documents that need revision. > Glenn may have an excellent case for putting the SIL codes in RFC1766. He may > even have a case for putting the SIL codes in without an "S-" introducer and > putting the introducer on the son-of-639 codes should they ever appear. If so, > he needs to bring this up with the WG that produced the content-language > !? specification -- the MAILEXT WG, I believe. Does the MAILEXT WG still exist? The latest minutes seems to be mailext-minutes-95apr.txt, which says: : The working group should conclude its work by the Stockholm IETF. (Note: : the Area Directors would like to see the group conclude its work prior : to the IETF.) How can one in general find out which IETF WGs are not yet disbanded? Is there any always up-to-date database covering WGs? Is dissolution of WGs always announced on the ietf-announce list, with some unique substring in the Subject header? /Olle -- Olle Jarnefors, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
Received on Friday, 3 November 1995 12:08:11 UTC