Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <> Tue, 15 April 2008 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4104728C34C; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CFA28C3CD for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.655
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V15bVZEYljbD for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AA0D28C3B7 for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 11:25:40 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp018) with SMTP; 15 Apr 2008 13:25:40 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19mvApUI6dmlMf7l/Q2stgXWACDCrC3GQVNANjPyq RaPGJqBvtRa7oP
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:25:36 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Duerst <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:25:34 -0700
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>, HTTP Working Group <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martin Duerst wrote:
> The above text gives the impression that there is a separate
> concept of a "HTTP language tag". Why not just say something
> like "HTTP uses language tags as defined in ...".


> Also, with RFC 4646, any further (currently being worked on by the LTRU WG)
> extensions (not in syntax, but in the number of languages covered) might
> be excluded. People have been wondering e.g. whether they can use
> RFC 3066 or RFC 4646 language tags with RFC 2616, we don't want that
> to happen again. RFC 4646 (and RFC 4647, which defines matching) can
> be referenced as BCP 47, which doesn't have to be updated even if
> a new RFC makes more language tags available. The basic syntax
> is still the same. So I strongly suggest you reference BCP 47
> rather than a specific RFC.

As we're including the Language-Tag ABNF production by reference, I'd 
prefer to stick with a fixed reference.

> As you can see on that page, the registry of full language tags is
> obsolete. It has been replaced by the language subtag registry, at


>> Section 3.5., paragraph 6:
>> OLD:
>>    where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language abbreviation
>>    and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 country code.  (The
>>    last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are
>>    examples of tags which could be registered in future.)
>> NEW:
>>    (The last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last
>>    are examples of tags which could be registered in future.)
> This has to be reworded. en-US is a tag allowed based on the current
> subtag registrations. I'm not totally sure about en-cockney and i-cherokee.
> The LTRU WG can provide more or different examples.

I think the simplest fix is just to remove the statement.

> For 14.4, Accept-Language, please note that BCP 47 (RFC 4647 currently)
> also defines a language-range, probably the same as you have, so you
> should reference that. There are also various variants for matching
> predefined; you should be able to choose the one that fits your needs
> best and then only have to define a few details.

Good catch; I'd prefer to deal with this separately.

> ...

BR, Julian
Ltru mailing list