RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

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.  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 20:58:08 UTC