- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:18:29 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Phillips, Addison wrote: > However, some bad tags in the wild might not. Perhaps > reference the Section 2.1 ABNF but with a cautionary > note about the change? The secrets of <extlang> can be dealt with in RFC 4646 or its successor, not in 2616bis. Such "bad" tags are not relevant for the purposes of HTTP, they have the decent charme of x-pig-latin => nobody cares. > In draft-12 it is (sadly) called "Language-Tag" too. Well, getting the name right for the reference will be important, but for the RFC 4646 reference it is clear: RFC 1766: <Language-Tag> RFC 3066: <Language-Tag> RFC 4646: <Language-Tag> RFC 4647: <language-range> (adding the lone star "*") 2616bis can care about 4646bis *iff* it is approved. Frank
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 19:16:22 UTC