Julian Reschke さんは書きました: > > Martin Dürst wrote in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0202.html>: > >> 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. RFC 4647 defines a basic language range in sec. 2.1 which is the same as the language range of sec. 14.4 of RFC 2616. Note also the information in sec. 2.1 of RFC 4647: "Note that the ABNF [RFC4234] in [RFC2616] is incorrect, since it disallows the use of digits anywhere in the 'language-range' (see [RFC2616errata])." So you could just refer to basic language ranges of RFC 4647 and be fine. Felix > > 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 Wednesday, 30 July 2008 07:01:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:17 UTC