W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag"

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:03:45 +0200 (MEST)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0610160955480.3037@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Julian Reschke wrote:

>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:13:41 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 
>> wrote:
>>> So shouldn't RFC2616 (Section 3.10) stop defining these things, and just 
>>> normatively refer to RFC4626 for the definition of "Language-Tag"?
>> 
>> Wouldn't BCP47 be better?
>
> For now it's the same thing, so this doesn't really answer the question.
>
> With respect to referring to the BCP# instead of the RFC# -- I don't think 
> that's a good idea as long as you want to refer to a specific version of a 
> specification...

I agree that referring to a specific version is far better. However in the 
reference section adding BCP47 will also help people track further 
revision, but the core text should refer to 4646.

Regarding replacing the syntax by just a link to RFC4646 will break a nice 
feature of rfc2616, the fact that the syntax is contained in the spec, 
with no need to get something else. It means also that we should 
change/upgrade the definition of language-range (RFC2616#14.4)

I see in RFC4646 that the language tag syntax is defined using ABNF, 
should that mean that RFC2616's syntax should be "upgraded" to RFC4234 ?

Cheers,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:04:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT