Re: Errors in Registry
"Doug Ewell" <[email protected]> Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:48:54 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.languages |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20190109144854.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.8c10a9215e.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> |
Thanks to all for the support. Forms will be coming later this week. I wondered if there was a conflict between Section 2.2.2, which says extlangs MUST have a P-V identical to the Subtag field, and Section 3.1.7, which says P-Vs MUST be changed so as to avoid chaining. I think we can litigate our way out of this: 3.1.7 describes what happens when a P-V *changes*, but technically doesn't cover the case where the P-V field is *removed*. If there is ever a revision to RFC 5646 (I'm not holding my breath), we need to make sure this possible conflict is resolved. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org