[Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> That's my whole point - the danger that specs writers might look at 
>> the dropped extlang and say "they are dropping features between 
>> versions of  BCP 47, so we better refer to an RFC *only* and even 
>> leave 'or its successor' out".
>
> But this is a key: we are *not* dropping any features. We are dropping 
> the possibility of a future feature. The change to the ABNF (whether 
> by removing the extlang subtag entirely or by renaming and/or 
> comments) is to clean it up so that implementers do not implement for 
> non-and-never-to-be-features.

I think what Felix meant was not that we are dropping features, but that 
it may appear to the outside observer that we are dropping features.

--
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