Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Martin Dürst wrote in 

> Also, with RFC 4646, any further (currently being worked on by the LTRU WG)
> extensions (not in syntax, but in the number of languages covered) might
> be excluded. People have been wondering e.g. whether they can use
> RFC 3066 or RFC 4646 language tags with RFC 2616, we don't want that
> to happen again. RFC 4646 (and RFC 4647, which defines matching) can
> be referenced as BCP 47, which doesn't have to be updated even if
> a new RFC makes more language tags available. The basic syntax
> is still the same. So I strongly suggest you reference BCP 47
> rather than a specific RFC.

We've just been looking at it, and we are a bit concerned delegating the 
matching function to RFC4647. The matching defined in RFC2616 is very 
simple (prefix based), while RFC4647 seems to be more complex.

Do we have any evidence that HTTP/1.1 implementations implement RFC4647? 
Otherwise this seems to belong into the "future work" basket...

BR, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 17:27:04 UTC