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

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:

> **
> 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
>
>