Re: RFC2616 erratum "languagetag"

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 

> 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 

> 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 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 08:48:02 UTC