- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:47:50 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yves Lafon schrieb: >> For now it's the same thing, so this doesn't really answer the question. >> >> With respect to referring to the BCP# instead of the RFC# -- I don't >> think that's a good idea as long as you want to refer to a specific >> version of a specification... > > I agree that referring to a specific version is far better. However in > the reference section adding BCP47 will also help people track further > revision, but the core text should refer to 4646. Also naming the BCP # or STD # in the reference is of course the right thing. > Regarding replacing the syntax by just a link to RFC4646 will break a > nice feature of rfc2616, the fact that the syntax is contained in the > spec, with no need to get something else. It means also that we should > change/upgrade the definition of language-range (RFC2616#14.4) The problem is that RFC4646 has made that much harder, because now two lines wouldn't be sufficient anymore (unless we deviate from RFC4646's ABNF). > I see in RFC4646 that the language tag syntax is defined using ABNF, > should that mean that RFC2616's syntax should be "upgraded" to RFC4234 ? I guess so (see also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2004OctDec/0035.html>). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:48:02 UTC