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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 15 April 2008 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4104728C34C; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CFA28C3CD for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.655
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V15bVZEYljbD for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AA0D28C3B7 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 11:25:40 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.117]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp018) with SMTP; 15 Apr 2008 13:25:40 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19mvApUI6dmlMf7l/Q2stgXWACDCrC3GQVNANjPyq RaPGJqBvtRa7oP
Message-ID: <480490B0.9030607@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:25:36 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <6.0.0.20.2.20080415105232.09284ec0@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20080415105232.09284ec0@localhost>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:25:34 -0700
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

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 ...".

Ack.

> 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
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry.

ACK.

>> 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
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru