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

Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:18:29 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <fu5j8j$i1m$1@ger.gmane.org>

Phillips, Addison wrote:

> However, some bad tags in the wild might not. Perhaps
> reference the Section 2.1 ABNF but with a cautionary
> note about the change?

The secrets of <extlang> can be dealt with in RFC 4646
or its successor, not in 2616bis.  Such "bad" tags are
not relevant for the purposes of HTTP, they have the
decent charme of x-pig-latin => nobody cares.

> In draft-12 it is (sadly) called "Language-Tag" too.

Well, getting the name right for the reference will be
important, but for the RFC 4646 reference it is clear:

RFC 1766: <Language-Tag>
RFC 3066: <Language-Tag>
RFC 4646: <Language-Tag>
RFC 4647: <language-range> (adding the lone star "*")

2616bis can care about 4646bis *iff* it is approved.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 19:16:22 UTC

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