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

Would making the ABNF read like the following be adequate:

...

language      = (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code
               / 4ALPHA                 ; reserved for future use
               / 5*8ALPHA               ; registered language subtag

extlang       = *3("-" 3ALPHA)         ; OBSOLETE (do not use)

...

Addison

Ira McDonald wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> And, oddly, RFC 2119 does not define the two important conformance words used
> widely in IETF specs "DEPRECATED" (dying) and "OBSOLETE" (dead).  But I urge
> that an inline comment in the ABNF use the word OBSOLETE and the text make
> clear that conforming implementations MUST NOT produce or consume "extlang"
> subtags.
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira
> 
> On Dec 5, 2007 2:32 PM, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>    2. Leave extlang in the ABNF, but document that it is
>>>> "permanently
>>>>>>    reserved" (will never be used, a la ISO).
>>>>>>
>>>>> I favor this.
>>>>>
>>>> me too.
>>> "Permanently reserved" is not strong enough, IMO. It must be clear that extlang is *permanently dead*. I think > #1 makes that clearer, but I'd accept a variation of #2 that left no doubt.
>> I agree with Peter that if its dead it should be made clear that it is completely dead.  "Permanently reserved" implies that software still needs to consider the possibility that such tags would exist, adding complexity that will never be used.
>>
>> - Shawn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltru mailing list
>> Ltru@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

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