W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2011

[Bug 14709] lang tag validation is insufficiently specified

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:41:13 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RNU89-0006AF-NG@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14709

--- Comment #10 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-11-07 18:41:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > Thus I don't see that you have brought forward a valid reason to not do what
> > > John D proposed.
> > 
> > Let me step back a bit. John D. said:
> 
> If you realie that your talk about subsetting the BCP47 was wrong, then we can
> at least put that misunderstanding to the side ... :-D

Granted. I had misremembered 1766 as permitting 3*CHAR 639 tags.

> > "As is, the spec merely defines the
> > *expectation* that the language code is a BCP47 code but allows for an
> > entirely different language tag format to be used in it's place."
> > 
> > I don't read this from the current spec. That is, I don't read the spec as
> > permitting "an entirely different language tag format".
> 
> The spec defines - in principle - how a unknown tag should be handled. But it
> does not cover the issue that the 'unknown' or 'unreckonized' tag could be
> recognized/known by some other registry or convention than the BCP 47 one, and
> that the UA - or API - might know that convention. At least, that is how I read
> it.

I read as:

(1) explicit: must be BCP47 format or empty string;
(2) implied: if not BCP47 format (syntactically), then not valid;
(3) implied: if is BCP47 format (syntactically) but not (semantically) valid,
then not valid;
(4) implied: if is BCP47 format (syntactically) and is (semantically) valid,
but is not (semantically) recognized by UA (for some process, e.g., line
breaking, hyphenation, etc), then is valid but "unknown" ("unrecognized") for
that process;

the current spec clearly states (1), while (2) and (3) follow from BCP47;

it is the case of (4) that seems to be the possible source of our present
discussion; the current HTML5 language seems clear enough for me to infer (4)

i did not read any of the current language as permitting a non-BCP47 format;

> I read the screenreader example of the spec as more of an adhoc case.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2011 18:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 November 2011 18:41:25 GMT