Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:14:56 -0700

Mark Davis 🍮 <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

>> My concern is that the -t-...-t- mechanism would come to be used,
>> which would violate the RFC.
> 
> We already see the far more common en-GB-FR (meaning en-GB and the
> user is currently in FR). There are so many other ways to violate the
> BCP47 RFC that duplicate -t- extensions pale in comparison. Any
> implementation of BCP47 already needs to deal with goofy tags.

I don't think that's a great reason to open the door even wider.  But
I'm also not sure how much demand there will be in the real world to
stack these "transformed from" identifiers two or more levels deep.  (We
can always contrive our own examples, of course.)

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell

---

From: Mark Davis ☕ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:56:38 -0700

I agree; so I think we ought to see how everything works first, before
extending.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:14, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>