Re: Language tags (Re: Statistics on reusing request)

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>