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

Peter Constable wrote:
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>>     
>
>
>   
>> exactly - or rather specs citing BCP 47. 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.
>   

Looking closer to the spec than the ABNF, of course I see you point - 
but I'm still worried about the unclear status of the ABNF, see my other 
mail about the missing description of the ANBF stability.

Btw., I would be fine with your version of option #2 as well.

Felix

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