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

If XML Schema 1.1 is still a work in progress, and assuming 4646bis wraps up quickly (which I hope will be the case), why would it not be possible (and, indeed, why would it not be welcomed) to suggest that XML Schema 1.1 use ABNF from 4646bis that differs from 4646 by removing a never-to-be-used construct and hence is simpler?

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:32 AM
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: Peter Constable; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?
>
> Martin Duerst wrote:
> > At 01:16 07/12/07, Peter Constable wrote:
> >
> >> Content-Language: en-US
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@roadrunner.com]
> >>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >> I understood that. But I think it's significant that we are *not*
> removing
> >> any features, and it seems to me that could be explained easily
> enough.
> >>
> >
> > [chairs hat OFF]
> >
> > It looks like this could be explained easily enough, but I'm quite
> > sure that this won't be the case. XML, and XML Schema, are very
> > strictly defined languages. Fortunately, we managed to get XML
> > away from including a grammar for language tags in an early erratum/
> > corrigendum. But if XML Schema has indeed used RFC 4646 for defining
> > the syntactic range of language tags, then we should not remove
> > some productions.
> This is a repetition, but maybe useful in this long thread.
>
> The W3C i18n core Working Group asked the XML Schema Working Group to
> use the RFC 4646 syntactic range of language tags for XML Schema 1.1
> (datatypes), see
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3079#c2 (search for "here
> RFC 4646 grammar")
> We assumed that the RFC 4646 ABNF will be stable, and since XML Schema
> 1.0 (datatypes) uses the ABNF from RFC 3066
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#language
> it seems natural to propose for XML Schema 1..1 to have the RFC 4646
> ABNF for XML Schema 1.1.
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>
>
>

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