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

Ira McDonald scripsit:

> My two cents - Stephane is dead right - as an outsider who is a protocol
> guy, I'm appalled that his argument isn't obvious to this list.

(Disclaimer: I don't favor removing the extlang syntax from RFC 4646bis,
as I don't think removing it is necessary.)

The question is not so clear-cut as the terms "well-formed" and "valid"
(which are derived from XML, and ultimately from predicate logic) would
suggest.  Well-formed but not valid language tags are much more like
unassigned Unicode codepoints.  They are part of the space of possible
tags, but they have no meaning, and it is entirely inappropriate for
anyone to use them to tag anything.  Specifically, anyone who does is
subject to having his meanings misinterpreted if and when the tag ever
does become valid.

Removing the extlang syntax is like the ISO committee deciding to remove
the codepoints 110000 to 7FFFFFFF, as they did recently, in order to align
with Unicode's codespace.  No characters had ever been assigned there,
none were ever expected to be assigned there, many things would break
if any were ever assigned there.  So calling that a breach of backward
compatibility is true only in the most technical sense.

> On Dec 4, 2007 11:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
> > Are you sure? Did you read every XML document published to check the
> > language tag they indicate? 

If any such documents exist, the language tags in them have no
interoperable meaning.

-- 
John Cowan       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        <cowan@ccil.org>
        You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
        You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
                Clear all so!  `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

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