[Ltru] Re: Language tags in the future version of HTTP

Doug Ewell wrote on the LTRU list:

> Cross-references like that are generally considered a good thing,
> aren't they?  They reduce the chances of introducing a typo that
> changes the ABNF, and serve to discourage each application from
> adopting their own, slightly different syntax.

Depends.  For 2616bis they could use a simplified syntax in the
direction of  tag = primary *( "-" auxiliary )  directly expanded
in  tag = 1*8( ALPHA / DIGIT ) *( "-" 1*8( ALPHA / DIGIT ))  with
a note in prose that tags are actually supposed to be BCP 47 tags.

> "Self-sufficiency" should be a complete non-goal.

As proposed above, where is the problem ?  I guess 2616bis needs
also ranges (with "*" stars) based on RFC 4617 somewhere, that is
also covered by BCP 47, but references in RFCs to BCPs, STDs, etc.
are typically given by their RFC number (at least for documents
created with xml2rfc).

> How many modern RFCs seek to define MUST and SHOULD independently
> of RFC 2119

RFC 2821 and I-D.klensin-2821bis come to mind.  It's a royal pain
to check that these definitions are verbatim copies not citing the
source for a very esoteric reason (arguably 2821bis doesn't follow
the one and only MUST in chapter 6 of 2119).

> or the format of a mail message independently of RFC (2)822?

Well, HTTP does some things with MIME you won't find in RFC 2045 ;-)

 Frank (cc hhtpbis)

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