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

Martin Duerst <> Wed, 12 December 2007 06:52 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2LSA-0000vk-IO; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:52:22 -0500
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2LS8-0000vf-It for; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:52:20 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2LS8-0000vN-4X for; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:52:20 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2LS5-0006qN-DM for; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:52:18 -0500
Received: from (scmse2 []) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id lBC6q9ox008118 for <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:52:10 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ( by via smtp id 0338_c2a52108_a87e_11dc_9a46_0014221f2a2d; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:52:09 +0900
Received: from ([]:40848) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S253C0A> for <> from <>; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:48:03 +0900
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:50:28 +0900
To: Felix Sasaki <>, Peter Constable <>
From: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <019601c83818$b06c3070$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

At 08:58 07/12/12, Felix Sasaki wrote:

>As I said before, the I18N core Working Group within W3C proposed to the XML Schema Working Group to refer to the ABNF from RFC 4646. I had a call with someone from the XML Schema working group this morning, and it seems they are various opinions in the XML Schema Working Group about how to refer to language tag specs:
>1) refer to a specific spec, e.g. RFC 3066 (this is what is currently at , i.e. a reference to RFC 3066)
>2) make no type constraint, just refer to the (ISO) language codes
>3) say that a validator needs to check current version of language code spec if it wants to do the right thing (where "needs" doesn't have any normative power), and providing the necessary reference for  that.
>The current tendency within the XML Schema Working Group is that they might go for 3) and replace the reference to 3066 with a reference to BCP 47.
>However, the pattern for validation of the language data type will probably not be changed, it will stay as RFC 3066 like

This is very much the right way to go. There is no point for a
using spec to be too detailled in terms of the syntax. And
for the semantics, pointing to BCP 47 is the best thing to do.

But I don't think this solves the problems for us.

In RFC 4646, we defined some tags as well-formed. In RFC 4646bis, we suddenly
say that some of these tags are not well-formed. We never would do this for
valid tags, so I'm really not sure it is a good thing to do for well-formed tags.

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Ltru mailing list