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

Peter Constable wrote:
> If XML Schema 1.1 is still a work in progress, and assuming 4646bis wraps up quickly (which I hope will be the case), why would it not be possible (and, indeed, why would it not be welcomed) to suggest that XML Schema 1.1 use ABNF from 4646bis that differs from 4646 by removing a never-to-be-used construct and hence is simpler?
>   

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 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#language , 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

[a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*

So for this thread I think this mainly means good news (an "old" 
reference to the RFC 4646 ABNF in XML Schema is not a problem anymore, 
since they will not have it anyway ) and some bad news (there will be 
the old RFC 3066 ABNF also in XML Schema 1.1). I think the later news 
should not prevent people from in LTRU moving forward.

Felix|
|

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