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

Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag"

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:47:50 +0200
Message-ID: <45334736.3080600@gmx.de>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Yves Lafon schrieb:
>> 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.

Also naming the BCP # or STD # in the reference is of course the right 
thing.

> 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)

The problem is that RFC4646 has made that much harder, because now two 
lines wouldn't be sufficient anymore (unless we deviate from RFC4646's 
ABNF).

> 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 ?

I guess so (see also 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2004OctDec/0035.html>).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:48:02 GMT

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