W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Request for PR for XML 1.1

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@acm.org>
Date: 14 Oct 2003 17:48:01 +0200
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, W3C XML Coordination Group <w3c-xml-cg@w3.org>, xml-editor@w3.org
Message-Id: <1066146481.2359.79.camel@michael.hit.uib.no>

On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:03, Chris Lilley wrote:

> I note an error in this document. Although the error is in a Note and,
> perhaps, non-normative it is still incorrect and should be corrected.
> I do not believe that correction of the error would affect conformance
> of XML processors.
> 
> 2.12 Language Identification
> 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/10/PR-xml11-20031010/PR-xml11-20031010-review.html#sec-lang-tag
> 
> 
> > [IETF RFC 3066] tags are constructed from two-letter language codes
> > as defined by [ISO 639], from two-letter country codes as defined by
> > [ISO 3166], or from language identifiers registered with the
> > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA-LANGCODES]
> 
> That is correct but not complete, and could lead implementors into
> error.
> 
> Three-letter language codes are also standardized by ISO 639
> - this is a change from when XML 1.0 was originally written. Quoting
> from RFC 3066:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
> 
> > All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to assignments found
> > in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the representation of names of
> > languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments
> > subsequently made by the ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or
> > governing standardization bodies.

Just out of caution -- do you have any evidence other than
RFC 3066 that ISO 639 part 2, also known as ISO 10639, has
in fact become an IS?  People have been arguing that discussions
of language codes should reference it, because it was going to
be an IS any day now, for a while now -- I believe I was first
told that it was as good as finished sometime in the early 
1990s.  Is it in fact done?  When did it happen?

Michael
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 11:49:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:46 UTC