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

Peter Constable wrote:
>
> I think #3 would be more than just slightly sub-optimal. Many people 
> would look just at the statement of the ABNF and go away and do things 
> on that basis. The statement of the ABNF should somehow indicate 
> clearly that extlang is DEAD, never to be resurrected.
>
>  
>
> We need to be clear about the decision we’re making: we are deciding 
> to abandon extlang **permanently**. Removing extlang from the ABNF 
> will leave something that is more-certainly stable in that particular 
> regard. Of course, it doesn’t make the ABNF as a whole stable
>

I went through the draft looking for "stabl", and found it only in 
relation to validity (including the registry in general) and 
grandfathered sub tags. I found nothing about the ABNF. Secion 8 of RFC 
4646 says:

"... in no case is the syntax more permissive and processors based on 
the ABNF and other provisions of RFC 3066 (such as those described in 
[XMLSchema]) will be able to process the tags described by this document."

I think it would be very helpful (again esp. for outreach to other 
technologies) to have a statement in the main text about the stability 
and backwards compatibility of the ABNF. Of course one cannot predict 
the future of the ABNF, but expressing the intention might help already.

Felix

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