- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:01:29 +0900
- To: "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
I agree with Addison. Regards, Martin. At 05:57 06/07/12, Addison Phillips wrote: > >For the normative part that defines language tags and their syntax? Very. >The IESG has said on numerous occasions in this whole adventure that the BCP >and STD numbers are stable and reliable pointers to the current version of >any particular item. The fact that draft-registry is BCP 47 and not on the >STD track is in some ways an outgrowth of that very fact. > >Addison > >PS> Of course, I gave up a long time ago thinking I could predict anything >at the IETF. "Past performance is not an indicator of future returns." But >this seems pretty certain. > >Addison Phillips >Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > >Internationalization is an architecture. >It is not a feature. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida >> Sent: mardi 11 juillet 2006 13:35 >> To: 'Addison Phillips'; www-i18n-comments@w3.org; >> public-i18n-core@w3.org >> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis >> >> >> >> Hmm. I guess I was just in one of my unconfident moods... Do >> you believe >> that we can guarrantee that all successors to RFC 3066 will >> be referred to >> as BCP 47? >> >> RI >> >> ============ >> Richard Ishida >> Internationalization Lead >> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) >> >> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ >> http://www.w3.org/International/ >> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/ >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] >> > Sent: 11 July 2006 20:54 >> > To: ishida@w3.org; www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org >> > Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis >> > >> > Richard remarked: >> > >> > > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its >> > successor" >> > > after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis >> > is expected >> > > to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC >> > > 3066ter). >> > >> > If you reference BCP 47 there is no need to say "or its >> > successor", since BCP 47 is always the most recent set of >> > documents. I had previously suggested the formulation: >> > >> > "[BCP 47] which is currently represented by [RFC 3066bis]" >> > >> > If you reference draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt (i.e. RFC >> > 3066bis), then you'll want to use the successor formula. >> > >> > Addison >> > >> > Addison Phillips >> > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. >> > >> > Internationalization is an architecture. >> > It is not a feature. >> > >> > >> >> >> #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2006 01:48:11 UTC