W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: I18n comment: rfc3066 or successor

From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:16:12 -0800
Message-ID: <43D3F61C.6080300@icu-project.org>
To: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>
CC: ishida@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

I disagree. 3066bis does not "introduce incompatibilities": scripts 
already occur in 3066 language tags. The matching document is a red 
herring. While useful, it does not replace any normative part of 3066. 
And one of the main matching techniques in it is truncation.

Tex, I know that you disagree with the approach taken in 3066bis (I know 
the feeling; I disagreed with the Unicode addition of the math letters), 
but it's time to move on.

Mark

Tex Texin wrote:

>I do not think that adding "and its successors" is a good idea in the case
>of 3066.
>
>The new standard introduces incompatibilities by inserting scripts in
>between languages and regions.
>A separate RFC is proposed to define matching rules to help in resolving
>these problems.
>The W3C should carefully assess the impact on W3C standards of moving to the
>new model of language identification.
>The standards would also need to consider taking on the new matching rules,
>as until now the matching rules were defined in the individual W3c
>specifications.
>e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/dirlang.html#h-8.1.3
>http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#lang
>
>et al.
>The general rule has been simple truncation, which will now give different
>behaviors when language tags are changed.
>
>In cases where web standards say the identifier can be anything, and 3066 is
>only recommended, web applications that use other types of identifiers may
>fail if the matching rules are changed.
>
>The W3C should take a more thoughtful and determined approach to adopting or
>adapting to the changes in the RFC 3066 series.
>
>The standards that already say "and its successors" need to review the
>impact of using the new format while maintaining the old matching rules.
>(e.g. css 2.1)
>
>tex
>
>
>ishida@w3.org wrote:
>  
>
>>Comment from the i18n review of:
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/
>>
>>Comment 8
>>At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-css3-selectors/
>>Editorial/substantive: S
>>Location in reviewed document:
>>Sec. 6.3.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/#attribute-representation]
>>
>>Comment:
>>"as described in RFC 3066 ([RFC3066])"
>>
>>Recommend 'as described in RFC 3066 ([RFC3066]) or its successor'.
>>
>>Note that its successor is currently only awaiting the IETF editor to assign an RFC number, but has been approved by the IETF to succeed RFC3066. Note also that it will allow for additional subcode values, such as script identifiers.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>From: Daniel Glazman
>>>[mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
>>>Sent: 20 January 2006 16:00
>>>      
>>>
>>>#8 ok
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2006 21:16:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:50 GMT