Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian replied:

> > 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?

Yes, exactly so.

> > 2. The new version includes an ABNF production of value to HTTPbis
> (obs-language).
>
> Now that would be a good reason.

I'm of two minds here:

I would prefer not to reference the 3066-compatible syntax. Language tags which match that production but not 4646/4646bis's have never been valid and the majority of "bad tags" in the wild turn out to match the newer ABNF anyway.

However, some bad tags in the wild might not. Perhaps reference the Section 2.1 ABNF but with a cautionary note about the change?

>
> 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>),

(wearing editor hat) I erred in referencing the production name here. In draft-12 it is (sadly) called "Language-Tag" too. I will change the production name to make it distinct in the next-and-hopefully-last version.

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126 (Amazon)
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

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