[Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

Felix Sasaki wrote:

> We spend a fair amount of time to evangelize BCP 47 with RFC 4646
> syntax this year within W3C (not only XML Schema WG)

That the WG claiming that IRI is just a modern name for URI, or do I
confuse this with XHTML modularization ?

> always saying "The ABNF is stable". I don't plan to go back to
> these people to say now "stable, but ..."

It's stable in the sense that it won't match any existing tag, and
it will continue to not match any existing tag.    It will only miss 
some non-existing tags, where a 4646bis implementation can be
smarter based on a simplified ABNF.

BTW, the discussion of the "most perverse tag" isn't affected 
by keeping or trimming the obsolete ABNF, zero extlang-s is
zero extlang-s no matter what the ABNF says.

 Frank

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