Re: [Ltru] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5646 (5457)

John Cowan <> Sun, 12 August 2018 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BBA130E3F for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VmIwHKUzyM5n for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0768D130E3E for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r24-v6so5961831wmh.0 for <>; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GQitnXXG8gG5I3FfH6GRJbec4KuMtmkK+H66QO/npUk=; b=bjk7ubO5ITh+/EEskuYBdINbUN8r56+Irx42zo4hmrLgMKnZObt8KjizjYNlITCsvU GXF/rfzuAnlZXHaV2+7h2NNw2JczGaWY2YNLbBw/VlXaJEs2TjgICblgI2pBoxboiNSb h6wIfLJHuy+LFlTbDveNz2rBp91nie3FfyjyU1TXPfbklmpU9z/nwowPsq8KR2OJ9eSO HOo8wg04BA6cVclkQaxESjyTvKThTRivZqzMGaShOXCqMQAuEMSPs2k+D1bjtGrbOzRw szqoxu2c4NaabOZfcLxRVcE+zfxY/eOrDiC5wF3oE4KStuR1MR56uS8NHIEd6x3cK4gH yHkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GQitnXXG8gG5I3FfH6GRJbec4KuMtmkK+H66QO/npUk=; b=Tfzt6cGtzoF15H8pyanuPvyFbasyQ/Wlb5d46JDCAQodmX9JumgxqoERQ1c5tgnX0C PMUPQPhgWB5F0haj5DPlI7JwN19BF55FVIEke8jHu9DwmvU5usNcWcjY4GBW2t5oh8CF L0R5GnBiUMAoSaH0j9FdEvvfu5+J15ULY7+jpj/huChJrY81hUlR5WEsaxGjUojQDQ4a z59vSzXd1fbhoo/Pj/XO4KccziJ0XlfEUvzGaNLoe2GaNCXbjk1+Hg7OjWoT9YG1KIf/ 2/gJknhrxlV6N0ychOhir9TpGWOBx6RykUnOhUSX4WMXTqHZxtV3KI4IGXmh3TaqCKiS npIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG/aBMS7D5nuKiV2WSL59cK8yG+mmxDMnjzAFqS/5jjWW/jLjaj 6+KBFozaL0g+lvmD+sFD4RPhgEH7wFyYntlMmhWw6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPxM2PZ8aHqhd942ayvMLcRzvg/iG8LNgVcBP0f/WaHw/F7mYS8ZTvOfa1qgNOz0A0ggJNSUklnOEohUOsP0AZ0=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:6d17:: with SMTP id i23-v6mr6848615wmc.139.1534106009258; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a1c:8a53:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: John Cowan <>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:33:08 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: RFC Errata System <>
Cc:,,, Alexey Melnikov <>,,, =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bae5e4057342e310"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 15:49:02 -0700
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5646 (5457)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 20:33:34 -0000

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 2:28 PM, RFC Errata System <> wrote:

> Sec. 2.2.2 contains an additional validity requirement (point 4): the
> existence of no more than one extended language subtag.  This is not
> reflected in the definition of validity given in sec. 2.2.9 of the RFC.

It seems to me that it's 2.2.2  rather than 2.2.9 that's at fault.  2.2.2

       That is, the second and third extended language
       subtag positions in a language tag are permanently reserved and
       tags that include those subtags in that position are, and will
       always remain, invalid.

However, the grandfathered tag "zh-min-nan" is valid by the definition in
2.2.9 even though it has a second extended language subtag. So since the
above sentence is not normative (it merely explains what is believed to be
a consequence of the preceding statements), it should be removed.

In the alternative, we can simply not worry about it:

The Tract produced an immense sensation, for it seemed to be a deadly and
> treacherous blow aimed at the very heart of the Church of England. Deadly
> it certainly was, but it was not so treacherous as at first sight appeared.
> The members of the English Church had ingenuously imagined up to that
> moment that it was possible to contain in a frame of words the subtle
> essence of their complicated doctrinal system, involving the mysteries of
> the Eternal and the Infinite on the one hand, and the elaborate adjustments
> of temporal government on the other. They did not understand that verbal
> definitions in such a case will only perform their functions so long as
> there is no dispute about the matters which they are intended to define :
> that is to say, so long as there is no need for them. For generations this
> had been the case with the Thirty-nine Articles. *Their drift was clear
> enough ; and no body bothered over their exact meaning.* But directly
> some one found it important to give them a new and untraditional
> interpretation, it appeared that they were a mass of ambiguity, and might
> be twisted into meaning very nearly anything that anybody liked.
> Steady-going churchmen were appalled and outraged when they saw Newman, in
> Tract No. 90, performing this operation. But, after all, he was only taking
> the Church of England at its v/ord. And indeed, since Newman showed the
> way, the operation has become so exceedingly common that the most
> steady-going church- man hardly raises an eyebrow at it now.

--Lytton Strachey,* Eminent Victorians* (emphasis added)