Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 19 August 2009 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 D062A3A6CAB for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 dyy18LyRDI2f for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4FB3A68B4 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F284239E1CA; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:19 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBoVKMKNsuQE; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.sto.corp.google.com (212-181-117-146.customer.telia.com [212.181.117.146]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1712D39E1C4; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4A8BDA8B.40106@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:15 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01ABC815C8@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 3282: should we revise it?
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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:57:21 -0000

Phillips, Addison wrote:
> The one bit of language tagging infrastructure that we have not revised since this whole body of work has started is RFC 3282, which defines Content-Language and Accept-Language. This morning I had cause to want to reference it, but a desire not to (since it depends on 3066 rather than the current-and-future BCP 47).
FWIW, the reference is:

  [TAGS]      Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066

At the time, it seemed obvious to me that references to a 
standards-track specification were intended to be "this one or any 
version that obsoletes it"; it was only later that I discovered that 
there could be multiple differences of opinion on this even in cases 
that seemed obvious to me.

If the document were to be revised, an obvious improvement would be to 
split the references into normative and informative, and remove the 
unused ones - none of the ISO references are in fact used; this was the 
result of a rather hasty split from 1766.

If YAM decides that it's ready to go to Standard status, I really don't 
see any need except for formalism and nitpicking to revise the document 
at all.

Over to YAM list....

                   Harald


>  I'm pretty sure that the whole machinery of a WG is not needed to revise this document--I'm thinking it would make a suitable individual submission. But I thought I'd mention it here to see if anyone had thoughts about whether it were necessary, whether this list would make a suitable place to solicit comments, and whether anyone thought a WG charter were necessary for same (this last I studiously hope is not the case).
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>