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.  
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 20:35:07 UTC