Re: Re: Language transformation

Hi -

(<co-chair hat ON>)

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey <at> jefsey.com>
> To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis <at> jtcsv.com>
> Cc: <ltru <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language transformation
>

> On 19:09 31/03/2005, Mark Davis said:
> >The plan is for transliterations to be added to CLDR at some point, and
> >that would provide stable, predictable IDs that could be used for
> >variants. I suggest that we not try to incorporate transliteration
> >variants prematurely. For some more formal, structured mechanism of
> >describing the variants, it would a perfect case for the extension
> >mechanism proposed in the draft, where some other RFC could have
> >something like ru-Latn-t-ungegn-t-en.
>
> This kind of remark obviously make me react. Whose plan: IETF, IESG, IAB?

Obviously not, since CLDR is a Unicode project.
http://www.unicode.org/cldr/

> 1. this CLDR plan should be documented in the Draft as per Charter. At
> least to explain why it is not supported now.
...

There is no such requirement in the charter.  The charter mentions CLDR as
one of the users of RFC 3066.

Randy