Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410041F0C36 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TEXT=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5AHRw06AkVrv for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A91E1F0C34 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so402420gxk.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=FH1HBKl4GAesBC2ZAagJAawpa4IBfMh9lRZcjdLXawQ=; b=hLN0t0XFN5CJtMe9pDOL9j+pnH/05ses7rDrjybkE+r3zORGEkYZPunuDnIGFOVbmB 8wGsY2KfIhpEnCBCwbvxFO2huBaDJVk1XM/ICY5GAl7dm+g12XIEh0SQ6IQHk+jEVE3J dOKD4S7hKdPhatM4daGd0bE37ntbJPB5M46tk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.6.15 with SMTP id j15mr1025338ybi.330.1310049758896; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.48.19 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E152E4F.9070203@gmail.com>
References: <4E14F473.6030101@qualcomm.com> <4E152E4F.9070203@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:42:38 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: iC3urzls49zxmTDcX4EiILL9CoU
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_Fm0NLOyL6PLps=77mb=o-gU2cCvi0=i0nj6NQJ01qnVw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5199884634604a77bba01
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:42:40 -0000

Thanks for the feedback. We can make those corrections.

One question. The primary reason that we chose to use a BCP was primarily
because it provided a stable reference; the underlying RFCs can (and have)
changed while "BCP47" has remained the same. Listing the current RFCs
somewhat undercuts that. Note: if that is the practice we should do it, but
it seems odd.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> **
> Hello,
>
> I've identified the following issue in the draft.
>
> Section 2.2 says:
>
>     The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form:
>
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>      | Label  | ABNF                    | Comment                    |
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>      | t_ext= | "t"                     | Extension                  |
>      |        | ("-" lang *("-" field)  | Source + optional field(s) |
>      |        | / 1*("-" field))        | Field(s) only (no source)  |
>      | lang=  | language                | [BCP47 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01#ref-BCP47>], with restrictions |
>      |        | ["-" script]            |                            |
>      |        | ["-" region]            |                            |
>      |        | *("-" variant)          |                            |
>      | field= | sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum) | With restrictions          |
>      | sep=   | 1ALPHA 1DIGIT           | Subtag separators          |
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>
>
> I should note that, first of all, reference to RFC 5234 is missing;
> moreover, and this is more important, making the ABNF definition in the form
> of table makes such definition an invalid one, in terms of RFC 5234.  Also,
> there are a number of ABNF nits here.  So, please consider changing this to:
>
>     The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form, defined
>    using ABNF [RFC5234] in <t-ext> rule:
>
>      t-ext    = "t" ("-" lang *("-" field) / 1*("-" field))
>      lang     = langtag
>      field    = sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum)
>      sep      = ALPHA DIGIT
>      alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT
>
>    where <langta> rule is specified in BCP 47 [BCP47], <ALPHA> and <DIGIT>
>    rules - in RFC 5234 [RFC5234].
>
>  Also, the minors comments on references.  Reference to BCP 47 should
> include both references to RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, like:
>
>    [BCP47]    Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags",
>               BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.
>
>               Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
>               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
>
>  ...and, referencing UTS 35 you shouldn't reference specific parts of the
> document; this should be done in the text.  Finally, I don't see where
> [US-ASCII] is used in the text.
>
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
>
> 07.07.2011 2:49, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the
> ltru@ietf.org list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got a
> chance to review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a look at
> the ltru archive
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html>and send any comments to the
> ltru@ietf.org list since that's where discussion seems to be taking place.
>
> Thanks.
>
> pr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>