[Ltru] Re: Language tags in the future version of HTTP

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> Cross-references like that are generally considered a good thing, 
>> aren't they?  They reduce the chances of introducing a typo that 
>> changes the ABNF, and serve to discourage each application from 
>> adopting their own, slightly different syntax.
>
> Depends.  For 2616bis they could use a simplified syntax in the 
> direction of  tag = primary *( "-" auxiliary )  directly expanded in 
> tag = 1*8( ALPHA / DIGIT ) *( "-" 1*8( ALPHA / DIGIT ))  with a note 
> in prose that tags are actually supposed to be BCP 47 tags.

We tried that with the "grandfathered" production in 4646, and we got 
complaints from people unhappy with the loose syntax that appeared, 
taken out of context, to allow "en-a-b-c-d-e".  Having the real 
definition in prose didn't seem to help.  Now we have a separate 
"irregular" production that enumerates all the grandfathered tags that 
don't fit the rest of the syntax.

(BTW, are we going to remove the extlang production from the syntax and 
add a lot more items to the "irregular" list, or are we going to leave 
the production in place and cause people to scratch their heads 
wondering what it's there for?)

>> "Self-sufficiency" should be a complete non-goal.
>
> As proposed above, where is the problem ?

If their home-grown syntax doesn't agree with BCP 47, it's not clear 
which one people will believe.  Remember how many people thought RFC 
1766 and 3066 promised only "xx" and "xx-XX".

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru