W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:25:36 +0200
Message-ID: <480490B0.9030607@gmx.de>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>

Martin Duerst wrote:
> The above text gives the impression that there is a separate
> concept of a "HTTP language tag". Why not just say something
> like "HTTP uses language tags as defined in ...".


> Also, with RFC 4646, any further (currently being worked on by the LTRU WG)
> extensions (not in syntax, but in the number of languages covered) might
> be excluded. People have been wondering e.g. whether they can use
> RFC 3066 or RFC 4646 language tags with RFC 2616, we don't want that
> to happen again. RFC 4646 (and RFC 4647, which defines matching) can
> be referenced as BCP 47, which doesn't have to be updated even if
> a new RFC makes more language tags available. The basic syntax
> is still the same. So I strongly suggest you reference BCP 47
> rather than a specific RFC.

As we're including the Language-Tag ABNF production by reference, I'd 
prefer to stick with a fixed reference.

> As you can see on that page, the registry of full language tags is
> obsolete. It has been replaced by the language subtag registry, at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry.


>> Section 3.5., paragraph 6:
>> OLD:
>>    where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language abbreviation
>>    and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 country code.  (The
>>    last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last are
>>    examples of tags which could be registered in future.)
>> NEW:
>>    (The last three tags above are not registered tags; all but the last
>>    are examples of tags which could be registered in future.)
> This has to be reworded. en-US is a tag allowed based on the current
> subtag registrations. I'm not totally sure about en-cockney and i-cherokee.
> The LTRU WG can provide more or different examples.

I think the simplest fix is just to remove the statement.

> For 14.4, Accept-Language, please note that BCP 47 (RFC 4647 currently)
> also defines a language-range, probably the same as you have, so you
> should reference that. There are also various variants for matching
> predefined; you should be able to choose the one that fits your needs
> best and then only have to define a few details.

Good catch; I'd prefer to deal with this separately.

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 11:26:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC