[Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

Felix Sasaki wrote:

> how about existing specs that cite RFC 4646 and the "stable" ABNF?

How about W3C documents using raw IRIs in documents claiming to
be valid HTML 4 or XHTML 1 with a spec. talking about RFC 2396 ?
Or the odd system ID in the XML spec. working nowhere including
the W3C validator.  

IIRC you made sure that these spec.s say BCP 47, and where they
didn't follow your guidance its their fault, not yours.  It was
kind of obvious that the three extlang-s were reserved precisely
in the hope that 4646bis tags won't break 4646 parsers.  In fact
4646bis tags also won't break 3066 parsers, that's how they are
designed.  

OTOH new 4646bis implementations can be both simpler and smarter
than old 4646 or older 3066 implementations.  If folks need say
XML 1.0 2nd ed. as opposed to "XML 1.0 de jour" they'll have to
go to the trouble to spell it out, nothing's unusual about this.

BTW, the 4646bis drafts already modified the ABNF, the extlang
business is not the only update, there is already a new concept
of "irregular".

 Frank

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