Re: [Ltru] Re: Test suite for language tags?

Stephane Bortzmeyer scripsit:

> Does it mean that a processor should (ordinary "should" not RFC
> "SHOULD") define the grammar production "grandfathered" as a list of
> possible grandfathered tags, rather than the grammar rules expressed
> in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14?

Yes, absolutely.  MUST would be the appropriate modal verb, in fact.
The grammar rules are meant to cover the possibilities, not to serve as
a test for recognizing grandfathered tags.

At the present time there are exactly 34 grandfathered tags, of which
8 are deprecated with replacements (but must still be recognized).
Two more will probably be changed to redundant status before the adoption
of 3066ter.

At the adoption of 3066ter, six more tags will be transferred to
redundant status.  The only tags that will remain both grandfathered and
not deprecated are cel-gaulish (unless ISO 639-3 is extended to include
it), en-GB-oed, i-default, i-enochian (unless ISO 639-3 is extended to
include it), and the rather useless zh-min.  However, there will be no
harm in continuing to bake the full list of 34 into validators.

This suggests that in 3066ter we should specify the ABNF definition of
"grandfathered" explicitly as a choice of tags.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan@ccil.org
Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.  --Oscar Wilde

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