Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 16 April 2008 16:52 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 B9D7D28C438; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:52:25 -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 297B53A6864 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.484
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.885, 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 Iz5ZXS5XPZ3o for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0062E3A6866 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2008 13:11:16 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.117]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 16 Apr 2008 15:11:16 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+tuKYbY8atgHAVGU9YIaIKN51fqtZUPzFVeE976Y owqX8+AAkJHfps
Message-ID: <4805FAF2.7050408@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:11:14 +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: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <6.0.0.20.2.20080415105232.09284ec0@localhost> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA011FFFE92A@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA011FFFE92A@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:52:24 -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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Phillips, Addison wrote: > Hi, > > I have a number of thoughts on the proposed changes, which appear below my signature. > > I would suggest that HTTPbis wait in order to reference 4646bis, which is in WG last call, if at all possible. I mention this for two reasons: > > 1. It would be better to reference the update than the soon-to-be-obsolete version, even though the differences are minor. > > 2. The new version includes an ABNF production of value to HTTPbis (obs-language). Now that would be a good reason. Are you saying that HTTP should use that production (obs-language, <http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-12#section-2.2.9>), instead of Language-Tag (<http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-12#section-2.1>)? I'm no expert on that matter... do we have consensus on this among those who are? >> Martin Dürst wrote comments on Julian's email which said in part: >>> (see also <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/13>). >>> >>> > >> 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 ...". > > I agree with Martin here. However, it may be useful to reference the RFC 3066 Language-Tag production in Section 2.2.9, for compatibility with existing RFC 2616 implementations, and to specify "well-formed" conformance. In which case it may be simpler to just align the definition in HTTPbis with that production (instead of referring directly to RFC3066). > So I strongly suggest you reference BCP 47 >> rather than a specific RFC. > > +1 I don't see how, as long as we want to include a specific ABNF production. >>> Section 3.5., paragraph 3: >>> OLD: >>> >>> language-tag = primary-tag *( "-" subtag ) >>> primary-tag = 1*8ALPHA >>> subtag = 1*8ALPHA >>> >>> NEW: >>> >>> language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC4646], Section >> 2.1> >> >> See above. > > It may be better to reference Language-Tag as defined in 2.2.9 for compatibility. While it would be good to adopt the modern language tag ABNF, that would suggest that receivers reject tags that were well-formed but no longer are. For the record: that's in RFC4646bis, but not in RFC4646, right? > ... BR, Julian _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Phillips, Addison
- [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-L… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Acce… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Acce… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Acce… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Acce… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Acce… Julian Reschke
- [Ltru] Issue 181 (Accept-Language: which RFC4647 … Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (lang… Julian Reschke
- [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language tag ma… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Phillips, Addison
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language ta… Julian Reschke