RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

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 01:48:06 UTC