[Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

"Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Wed, 12 December 2007 16:20 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJd-0004Vc-7I; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:09 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJb-0004VV-Ly for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:07 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJa-0004VD-Rq for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:06 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJY-0001B2-Uf for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:06 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UIz-0006Q8-Ip for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:19:29 +0000
Received: from c-180-160-222.hh.dial.de.ignite.net ([]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:19:29 +0000
Received: from nobody by c-180-160-222.hh.dial.de.ignite.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:19:29 +0000
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:20:59 +0100
Organization: <http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <fjp1kh$s54$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <E1J01vI-0003cW-Rd@megatron.ietf.org><019601c83818$b06c3070$6601a8c0@DGBP7M81><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561E51429AA@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><><475E8342.1080206@w3.org><DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561E52A6F79@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com><475F2439.6020007@w3.org> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-180-160-222.hh.dial.de.ignite.net
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Martin Duerst wrote:

>> 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})*
> This is very much the right way to go.

+1, that could be also a plan for 2616bis (their 2616 pattern
    is definitely wrong).

> There is no point for a using spec to be too detailled in
> terms of the syntax. And for the semantics, pointing to BCP 47
> is the best thing to do.

+1 (however a validator should go to the trouble to check what
    it can check, the 4646bis ABNF is no exercise in futility)

 [end of the +1, now for the details:] 
> But I don't think this solves the problems for us.
> In RFC 4646, we defined some tags as well-formed. In RFC 
> 4646bis, we suddenly say that some of these tags are not 
> well-formed.

Some of these well-formed tags were _reserved_ for 4646bis.

They were never _valid_ tags.  Similar example, after some
fights and flamewars 2822upd will admit that there never was
a domain literal using NO-WS-CTL.  It's not yet clear if that
goes straight to /dev/null, or gets an <obs-domain-literal>.

Lately I think the promotion or revision of a standard should
never be done by the original authors, they tend to "know"
too many things that were never spelled out in their document.

> I'm really not sure it is a good thing to do for well-formed
> tags.

Let's ask our ADs, they know the similar issue with 2822upd.

Our <obs-extlang> is a border case, not a simple "MUST NOT
generate, MUST accept", it's "MUST NOT generate, MUST NOT
accept as valid, MUST accept as well-formed" (and the third
MUST could degenerate into a MAY or a SHOULD in practice,
and end up as security issue)


Ltru mailing list