- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:13:41 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,
<http://skrb.org/ietf/http_errata.html#languagetag> recommends to update
RFC2616 to refer to RFC3066. In the meantime, RFC3066 has been obsoleted
by RFC4646, and the original grammar production defining subtags seems
to be gone:
Language-Tag = langtag
/ privateuse ; private use tag
/ grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations
langtag = (language
["-" script]
["-" region]
*("-" variant)
*("-" extension)
["-" privateuse])
language = (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code
/ 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use
/ 5*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag
extlang = *3("-" 3ALPHA) ; reserved for future use
script = 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code
region = 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code
/ 3DIGIT ; UN M.49 code
variant = 5*8alphanum ; registered variants
/ (DIGIT 3alphanum)
extension = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum))
singleton = %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT
; "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9"
; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use
privateuse = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))
grandfathered = 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))
; grandfathered registration
; Note: i is the only singleton
; that starts a grandfathered tag
alphanum = (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646#page-5>).
So shouldn't RFC2616 (Section 3.10) stop defining these things, and just
normatively refer to RFC4626 for the definition of "Language-Tag"?
Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 14 October 2006 12:13:49 UTC