Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.  I thought so but best to check.

 

Debbie

 

From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 07 July 2011 17:27
To: Debbie Garside; 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'
Cc: 'Pete Resnick'; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

 

The word “field” here refers to the ABNF construct “field” on the document. So it means that the subtag must occur at the end of that part of the –t extension. The –t extension can, itself, be followed by other extensions or by private use. So, yes, that language tag would be allowed.

 

Addison

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 8:52 AM
To: 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'
Cc: 'Pete Resnick'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

 

Hi

 

Point of clarification only.

 

The draft states:

 

Any purely numeric subtag is a representation of a date in the

       Gregorian calendar.  It MAY occur in any mechanism field.  If it

       does occur:

 

       *  it MUST occur as the final subtag in the field,

 

Does field in this context mean the subtags after the t extension but before any further extensions?

 

In other words is the following allowed:  “ja-t-it-m0-xxx-v21a-2007-i-ami”

 

Best regards

 

Debbie

 

 

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: 07 July 2011 15:43
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Cc: Pete Resnick; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

 

Thanks for the feedback. We can make those corrections.


 

One question. The primary reason that we chose to use a BCP was primarily because it provided a stable reference; the underlying RFCs can (and have) changed while "BCP47" has remained the same. Listing the current RFCs somewhat undercuts that. Note: if that is the practice we should do it, but it seems odd.

 

Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hello,

I've identified the following issue in the draft.

Section 2.2 says:

   The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form:
 
     +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
     | Label  | ABNF                    | Comment                    |
     +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
     | t_ext= | "t"                     | Extension                  |
     |        | ("-" lang *("-" field)  | Source + optional field(s) |
     |        | / 1*("-" field))        | Field(s) only (no source)  |
     | lang=  | language                | [BCP47 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01#ref-BCP47> ], with restrictions |
     |        | ["-" script]            |                            |
     |        | ["-" region]            |                            |
     |        | *("-" variant)          |                            |
     | field= | sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum) | With restrictions          |
     | sep=   | 1ALPHA 1DIGIT           | Subtag separators          |
     +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+


I should note that, first of all, reference to RFC 5234 is missing; moreover, and this is more important, making the ABNF definition in the form of table makes such definition an invalid one, in terms of RFC 5234.  Also, there are a number of ABNF nits here.  So, please consider changing this to:

   The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form, defined
   using ABNF [RFC5234] in <t-ext> rule:
 
     t-ext    = "t" ("-" lang *("-" field) / 1*("-" field))
     lang     = langtag
     field    = sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum)
     sep      = ALPHA DIGIT
     alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT
 
   where <langta> rule is specified in BCP 47 [BCP47], <ALPHA> and <DIGIT>
   rules - in RFC 5234 [RFC5234].

Also, the minors comments on references.  Reference to BCP 47 should include both references to RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, like:

   [BCP47]    Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags", 
              BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.
 
              Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.

...and, referencing UTS 35 you shouldn't reference specific parts of the document; this should be done in the text.  Finally, I don't see where [US-ASCII] is used in the text.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev



07.07.2011 2:49, Pete Resnick wrote: 

Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the [e-mail] list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got a chance to review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a look at the ltru archive  <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html> and send any comments to the [e-mail] list since that's where discussion seems to be taking place.

Thanks.

pr

 


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru