W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-geo@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Resources updates in Lang Decl BP doc

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 11:56:57 +0100
To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "'GEO'" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006f01c69f58$92565e30$6601a8c0@w3cishida>

[Copying in Core]

Ok, I made changes to the page based on your comments below.  Thanks.

There will be a major edit to the page when the specs are finally published.

I don't always notice when these documents change.  Given your involvement
in this stuff, could I ask you to send a note to www-international each time
there is something to report?

Btw, I'm still unclear about some aspects of the scope of the label BCP 47.
As I understand it, it will refer to both the 'tags' and 'matching'
documents.  I have one or two questions about that:

1. Does it refer to those specs right now - presumably it doesn't refer to
RFC 3066bis yet? Currently ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/bcp/bcp47.txt points
to RFC 3066.  

2. Where is it defined what BCP 47 represents.

3. Can we be sure that someone is planning to update the link to BCP 47

4. What will the link to BCP 47 point to, given that there are two documents
and it can't point directly to both at the same time?

5. I'm assuming that BCP 47 will refer to both the 'tags' and 'matching'
documents, and that these documents will have different RFC numbers.  Is
that correct?  

6. Is there a precedent for one BCP to refer to more than one RFC?

7. Or is there a possibility of the two documents being combined into one?

8. What about the draft that outlines the initial registry, presumably that
won't be part of BCP 47?

9. Should W3C specs say they conform to BCP 47 and reference BCP 47 with the
above URI, even if they happen to be specifically interested in just one of
the two documents in question, or should they reference the specific


Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
> Sent: 04 July 2006 03:54
> As a separate issue, please update
> http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html.
> The matching draft has passed IETF Last Call and is now going 
> through the IESG approval process. It doesn't make sense to 
> create such a redirection page if you don't keep it up to date :-(.
> The current version of the draft is -15.
> Also, the filename of that page and title are confusing.
> The title is "Internet-Draft: BCP 47". This is almost a 
> contradition, and quite temporary. It would be better to have 
> a page for BCP 47, and describe the current state.
> Also, the text "Latest Version" should be taken away from the 
> IANA registry. This is a living document, not a frozen one, 
> so "Latest Version" is confusing. There are no other 
> versions. It would be similar to writing Latest Version: 
> Today's weather.
Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2006 10:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:04 UTC