- From: Fuqiao Xue via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 01:59:30 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
Took a brief look at these two documents: ----- > [From LTLI] Formulations such as "RFC 5646 or its successor" MAY be used, but only in cases where the specific document version is necessary. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From LTLI] Specifications that need to preserve compatibility with obsolete versions of [BCP47] MUST reference the production obs-language-tag in [BCP47]. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From LTLI] Content validators SHOULD check if content uses valid language tags where feasible. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From LTLI] Specifications SHOULD NOT reference [BCP47]'s underlying standards that contribute to the IANA Language Subtag Registry, such as ISO639, ISO15924, ISO3066, or UN M.49. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From LTLI] Applications that provide language information as part of URIs (e.g. in the realm of RDF) SHOULD use [BCP47]. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From LTLI] Specifications SHOULD NOT restrict the length of language tags or permit or encourage the removal of extensions. This guideline is not covered in specdev. ----- > [From specdev] Refer to BCP 47, not to RFC 5646. Should it mention RFC 1766 and RFC 3066, like LTLI? ----- In addition, the following guidance are in LTLI but not in specdev: * Unicode locale related guidelines * language tag matching related guidelines -- GitHub Notification of comment by xfq Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/ltli/issues/16#issuecomment-664731086 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2020 01:59:31 UTC