Re: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 08:58 07/12/12, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>   
>> As I said before, the I18N core Working Group within W3C proposed to the XML Schema Working Group to refer to the ABNF from RFC 4646. I had a call with someone from the XML Schema working group this morning, and it seems they are various opinions in the XML Schema Working Group about how to refer to language tag specs:
>>
>> 1) refer to a specific spec, e.g. RFC 3066 (this is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#language , i.e. a reference to RFC 3066)
>> 2) make no type constraint, just refer to the (ISO) language codes
>> 3) say that a validator needs to check current version of language code spec if it wants to do the right thing (where "needs" doesn't have any normative power), and providing the necessary reference for  that.
>>
>> The current tendency within the XML Schema Working Group is that they might go for 3) and replace the reference to 3066 with a reference to BCP 47.
>> However, the pattern for validation of the language data type will probably not be changed, it will stay as RFC 3066 like
>>
>> [a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*
>>     
>
> This is very much the right way to go. There is no point for a
> using spec to be too detailled in terms of the syntax. And
> for the semantics, pointing to BCP 47 is the best thing to do.
>
> But I don't think this solves the problems for us.
>
> In RFC 4646, we defined some tags as well-formed. In RFC 4646bis, we suddenly
> say that some of these tags are not well-formed. We never would do this for
> valid tags, so I'm really not sure it is a good thing to do for well-formed tags.
>   
+1

Felix


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