- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:53:12 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:23:44PM +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote a message of 87 lines which said: > > > a nice feature of rfc2616, the fact that the syntax is contained > > > in the spec, with no need to get something else. Is there a general rule somewhere against cross-RFC references? Because a lot of RFC do it (even RFC 2616, as you mention). > 3.10. Language Tags ... > Example tags include: > > en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin As mentioned by Frank Ellermann, it is bad practice to include invalid (even if they are well-formed) tags like en-cockney. i-cherokee is worse since it is not even well-formed (I agree it is not clear in RFC 4646 but much better said in 4646bis). x-pig-latin is not valid but it is a private tag, so I find it OK. > where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO-639 language > abbreviation and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO-3166 > country code. No, this is no longer true since RFC 4646 and the introduction of the IANA registry. For instance, "yu" as a country is no longer in ISO 3166 but still in the registry.
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 10:57:22 UTC