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

Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 01:16 07/12/07, Peter Constable wrote:
>   
>> Content-Language: en-US
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>     
>>> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@roadrunner.com]
>>>       
>>>>> 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.
>>>       
>> I understood that. But I think it's significant that we are *not* removing 
>> any features, and it seems to me that could be explained easily enough.
>>     
>
> [chairs hat OFF]
>
> It looks like this could be explained easily enough, but I'm quite
> sure that this won't be the case. XML, and XML Schema, are very
> strictly defined languages. Fortunately, we managed to get XML
> away from including a grammar for language tags in an early erratum/
> corrigendum. But if XML Schema has indeed used RFC 4646 for defining
> the syntactic range of language tags, then we should not remove
> some productions. 
This is a repetition, but maybe useful in this long thread.

The W3C i18n core Working Group asked the XML Schema Working Group to 
use the RFC 4646 syntactic range of language tags for XML Schema 1.1 
(datatypes), see
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3079#c2 (search for "here 
RFC 4646 grammar")
We assumed that the RFC 4646 ABNF will be stable, and since XML Schema 
1.0 (datatypes) uses the ABNF from RFC 3066
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/#language
it seems natural to propose for XML Schema 1..1 to have the RFC 4646 
ABNF for XML Schema 1.1.

Felix

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