RE: Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930

 Frank wrote:

> Should 4646bis do something for protocols wishing to emulate 
> the old 3066 registry ?  We could flag the source of language 
> tags in the description field (just an idea).  Or add a 
> how-to as appendix.

Surely that is quite easy to do as each subtag has a date?

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 18 June 2007 09:43
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Small bibliography error in RFC 4930
> 
> Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>  
> > That's not an error. The references are correct as published for 
> > promotion to draft standard status.
> 
> At the moment you can reconstruct a 3066 registry by looking 
> at the redundant / grandfathered tags in the 4646 registry, 
> and in the source standards (i.e. the language and region 
> subtags in the
> 4646 registry).
> 
> IOW just stay away from scripts, variants, and UN region numbers.
> 
> With the 4646bis registry it will be more convoluted, you'd 
> also have to stay away from 639-3 languages (+ extlangs, if 
> any pop up).
> 
> Should 4646bis do something for protocols wishing to emulate 
> the old 3066 registry ?  We could flag the source of language 
> tags in the description field (just an idea).  Or add a 
> how-to as appendix.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
>