- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 07:02:15 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, David Clarke <w3@dragonthoughts.co.uk>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
> > > RFC3066 is referenced frequently - it has been superseded by RFC4646 > and it > > would be good idea to update the references in your document. > > The Widgets document has now been updated to reference RFC4646. We > were a bit reluctant to reference RFC4646 as it adds quite a bit of > processing overhead if vendors are required to implement it in full. > The Widget spec will probably recommend that authors keep to the > simple location-language pattern for the name of localized folders. A couple of notes: 1. The 3066 pattern is language-region, not the other way around. 2. Don't reference RFC 4646. RFCs get obsoleted over time. Instead, reference BCP 47 (RFC 4646's designation in the IETF standards hierarchy). 3. Do reference RFC 4647 (as part of BCP 47) and, in particular, the Lookup matching scheme. I think you'll find that this is simple and consistent with existing practice. 4. You may find that, if you recommend what you intend to, certain applications are hindered. In particular, some languages (Chinese!）use varying scripts and need the script subtag from RFC 4646. Your recommendation will stand in the way of that. Although a validating implementation of 4646 adds a bit of overhead, a "well-formed" implementation isn't nearly as difficult (it can be done with an admittedly-very-long regular expression). A better suggestion might be to recommend using the 3066 ABNF for "validation" (for its simplicity). Best Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 17:10:06 UTC