So instead of:
The chair of the IAOC may be removed at any time by the affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the voting members of the IAOC, or as a result
of his or her departure from the IAOC.
we could say
If the chair leaves the IAOC, or if two thirds of the voting IAOC members
vote in
> Rather, the rule is simply that a country code, if present,
> always appears as a two letter second subtag. The new draft changes this
rule,
> so applications that pay attention to coutnry codes in language tags have
to
> change and the new algorithm for finding the country code is trickier.
You
On Sunday, December 12, 2004 16:19:39 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
whatever the merits of Pete's suggestion I think John makes a very
important point when he says that it would be better to refer to a RFC by
number rather than a BCP by number (and title) because the text can
ch
At 16:29 05/01/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> why not to follow under IAB guidance (or to review) the charter I
proposed
> yesterday, in an IETF way everyone could participate, and to have all
these
> applications supported one shot in working on a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Now, it may be the case that all _registered_ tags have avoided the use of
> non-country code two letter codes in the third and later position. But this is
> 100% irrelevant.
If you say so.
> The point is that conformant code implementing RFC 3066 is
> broken if it
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
> > [...] RFC 1766/3066 need to be able to deal with tags that contain pieces
> > they don't
> know about -- the only subtags they can know about are initial subtags of
> "i", "x" or
> ISO 639 IDs, or
Thanks for the language suggestion!
--On onsdag, januar 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0500 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And, FWIW, I still hate "all of the duties and responsibilities
normally associated with such a position" -- it is just too
open-ended and an invitation to arguments about wha
--On Wednesday, 05 January, 2005 17:35 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So instead of:
>
The chair of the IAOC may be removed at any time by the
affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting members of
the IAOC, or as a result of his or her depar
Bruce Lilly scripsit:
> I believe that John meant sect. 2.5 of RFC 3066, which does indeed
> mention a matching algorithm.
Yes.
> However, the proposed changes in the
> structure of tags interact badly with that algorithm.
It just makes the algorithm imperfect; however, it was imperfect before
> Date: 2005-01-05 10:33
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Section 2.5 (2.4.1 in the draft) states the matching rule in a succinct
> > fashion. ÂEverything in 2.4.2 is a non-normative elaboration of this.
>
> ??? Which in no way refutes my assertion that no matching rule algorithm
> was given in RF
--On onsdag, januar 05, 2005 08:27:30 -0800 EKR wrote:
I thought that was implied by "one of its appointed voting
members"... it's possible to read it otherwise, but it makes my head
hurt..
I thought so too, but then later you say that he/she "may be removed ..
or as a result of his or her depart
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --On onsdag, januar 05, 2005 08:09:59 -0800 EKR wrote:
>
>>>The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
>>>members to serve as the chair of the IAOC.
>>>
>>>The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to man
--On onsdag, januar 05, 2005 08:09:59 -0800 EKR wrote:
The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
members to serve as the chair of the IAOC.
The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
activities and meetings of the IAOC.
The term
of the IA
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [yes, it's back to that grind again]
>
> (This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because
> it's more specific than the original)
>
> Current draft says:
>
>The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
> > > Finding country codes is straightforward: any non-initial subtag of
> > > two letters (not appearing to the right of "x-" or "-x-") is a country
> > > code. This is true in RFC 1766, RFC 3066, and the current draft.
> > On the contrary, in RFC 3066 the rule is "any 2 letter value that
> > a
> Date: 2005-01-02 21:56
> From: "Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bruce Lilly <> supposedly scribbled:
> > OTOH, it's probably a
> > beneficial side-effect considering the criticism that another
> > organization whose abbreviated name also begins with "I" has
> > attracted due to its c
> Date: 2005-01-04 13:04
> From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Finding country codes is straightforward: any non-initial subtag of two
> letters
> (not appearing to the right of "x-" or "-x-") is a country code.
> This is true in RFC 1766, RFC 3066, and the current draft.
I believe that:
1
> Date: 2005-01-03 02:09
> From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Precisely; an RFC 1766/3066 parser, based on the 1766 and
> > 3066 specifications, can expect four classes of language tags:
> > 1. ISO 639 language code as the primary subtag, optionally
> > Â Âfollowed by an ISO 3166 co
> Date: 2005-01-02 19:47
> From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > It would be entirely possible for "en-Latn-US-boont" to be
> > registered under the terms of RFC 3066.
> >
> > But it hasn't been. No RFC 3066 parser will therefore find
> > that complete tag in its list of IANA
> Date: 2005-01-04 12:06
> From: John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the
> IDN situation is not an issue except in a very narrow sense and
> similar situation would apply to local-parts if we ever do
> something there. ÂIn the IDN case, the protocols are written in
> terms of arbitrary Unicode
ditto
Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
This proposal makes sense to me.
In particular, I agree with what the proposed text says and with what it
doesn't say.
Margaret
[yes, it's back to that grind again]
(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because
it's more specific than
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> why not to follow under IAB guidance (or to review) the charter I
proposed
> yesterday, in an IETF way everyone could participate, and to have all
these
> applications supported one shot in working on a linguistic ontology
where
> each language i
Harald writes:
> It also seems to me that it fits better if
> rearranged a bit. What about this?
>
>The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
>members to serve as the chair of the IAOC.
>
>The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the
>activ
This proposal makes sense to me.
In particular, I agree with what the proposed text says and with what
it doesn't say.
Margaret
[yes, it's back to that grind again]
(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because
it's more specific than the original)
Current draft says:
The
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
- There is nothing clear about whether the IAOC chair is peer,
superior or subordinate to the IAB chair or the IETF chair (or, for
that matter, the ISOC President).
I don't think the last point should be addressed. This document lays
out the specific mechanisms fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> > Finding country codes is straightforward: any non-initial subtag of
> > two letters (not appearing to the right of "x-" or "-x-") is a country
> > code. This is true in RFC 1766, RFC 3066, and the current draft.
>
> On the contrary, in RFC 3066 the rule is "any 2
[yes, it's back to that grind again]
(This issue has been split from #727 in the issue tracker, because it's
more specific than the original)
Current draft says:
The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting
members to serve as the chair of the IAOC, with all of the duties
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John C Klensin; Christian Huitema
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
> your draft is not controverted for bettering RFC 3066 but for not
> bettering it enough, in an interapplication concerted way, for the
> standard you want your draft to become.
The intent is that the draft become a BCP replacing RFC 3066 (also a BCP),
not an Int
29 matches
Mail list logo
