W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-collation@w3.org > May 2006

Re: draft-newman-i18n-collation-09.txt just posted

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:38:01 -0400
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Cc: ietf-imapext@imc.org, ietf-mta-filters@imc.org, Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, public-ietf-collation@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060511133801.GD13464@ccil.org>

I propose that the procedure specified in draft-newman-i18n-collation-09
for getting new collations approved should be changed to the procedure
used for new language tags.  Instead of the requestor sending the
request to IANA, who sends it to the Collation Reviewer for discussion
on the list, and then the Collation Reviewer sends it back to IANA for
registration (or doesn't), remove the first pass through IANA.

Have people post directly to the list and work out the details.  When the
requestor thinks it's ready, the Collation Reviewer wakes up and then
either sends the latest draft of the request to IANA or else sends a
rejection (with reasons) to the list.  This lowers the load on IANA.

This scheme has worked very well for ietf-languages@iana.org for the
past 11 years.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan
"The exception proves the rule."  Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory."  Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof."  But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 13:38:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:54 GMT