Re: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

"Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> Thu, 06 December 2007 23:13 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Pu4-000630-9J; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:13:12 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Pu3-00061F-8B for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:13:11 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Pu2-0005yn-Sn for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:13:10 -0500
Received: from toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp ([133.27.228.201]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Pu2-0001AI-Dw for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:13:10 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A476E2BC38; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:13:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: from toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MjGU0Zx5-52R; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:13:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: by toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 33) id 897FD2BC36; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:13:07 +0900 (JST)
Received: from 218.110.62.237 (SquirrelMail authenticated user fsasaki) by webmail.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 08:13:07 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <1422.218.110.62.237.1196982787.squirrel@webmail.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <019601c83818$b06c3070$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81>
References: <E1J01vI-0003cW-Rd@megatron.ietf.org> <019601c83818$b06c3070$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:13:07 +0900
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?
From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
To: Doug Ewell <dewell@roadrunner.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: fsasaki@w3.org
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
>
>>> That's my whole point - the danger that specs writers might look at
>>> the dropped extlang and say "they are dropping features between
>>> versions of  BCP 47, so we better refer to an RFC *only* and even
>>> leave 'or its successor' out".
>>
>> But this is a key: we are *not* dropping any features. We are dropping
>> the possibility of a future feature. The change to the ABNF (whether
>> by removing the extlang subtag entirely or by renaming and/or
>> comments) is to clean it up so that implementers do not implement for
>> non-and-never-to-be-features.
>
> I think what Felix meant was not that we are dropping features, but that
> it may appear to the outside observer that we are dropping features.

thank you for helping with clarifying, that is what I wanted to say. The
"outside observer" will probably look at the spec and see

1) there is a conformance type "wellformed"
2) the ABNF is a part of that conformance type
3) the ABNF has changed, i.e. a production has been dropped, ergo
4) a feature has been dropped which was part of this conformance type.

Felix


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