RE: SVG12: RFC 3066 reference

It is the body of the text that says "or its successor"... but not everywhere. The "successor" rubric appears in Section 2.12 (Language Identification):

--
The values of the attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of Languages, or its successor; in addition, the empty string MAY be specified.
--

Alas, this is not consistent. In Section 1.1 (Origin and Goals) there is this text:

--
This specification, together with associated standards (Unicode [Unicode] and ISO/IEC 10646 [ISO/IEC 10646] for characters, Internet RFC 3066 [IETF RFC 3066] for language identification tags, ISO 639 [ISO 639] for language name codes, and ISO 3166 [ISO 3166] for country name codes), provides all the information necessary to understand XML Version 1.0 and construct computer programs to process it.
--

And this text is at least a bit problematic when considering RFC 3066bis. The ISO references presumably could go away (replaced by the 3066bis registry). 

According to LTRU correspondents in recent days, the solution is to cite RFC 3066's (or its successor's) official IETF status, which is as BCP 47. BCP 47 will always be the most current version of language tags, no matter what the RFC number assigned. Thus a better reference might be "IETF BCP 47, currently represented by RFC 3066".

Just as an aside, the Internationalization Core WG is presently working on a REC-track document, "Language Tags and Locale Identifiers", which will reference RFC 3066 and its successor(s). Once we get this document well onto the REC-track, it can serve as a reference in W3C specs (then we only have to update ONE document).

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> Sent: 2005年10月20日 14:58
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; www-svg@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SVG12: RFC 3066 reference
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 20, 2005, 12:01:02 PM, Martin wrote:
> 
> MD> At 22:06 05/10/19, Chris Lilley wrote:
>  >>
>  >>On Monday, April 25, 2005, 12:47:44 AM, Bjoern wrote:
> 
>  >>BH> No it does not, XML 1.0 Third Edition clearly refers to RFC 3066 or
> its
>  >>BH> successor.
>  >>
>  >>Yes, it does. Sorry, we misunderstood you to be saying "remove the ref
>  >>to 3066 and replace it with a ref to an ID" which we were, naturally,
>  >>unwilling to do.
>  >>
>  >>Now that we understand what you are actually asking, we are happy to
>  >>agree and have updated the references to say 3066 "or its successor on
>  >>the IETF Standards Track".
>  >>
>  >>Please let us know if this is not satisfactory, within two weeks.
> 
> MD> Hello Chris,
> 
> MD> This is close to satisfactory, but not exactly. RFC 3066 is a BCP,
> MD> and its successor is also going to be a BCP, so neither of them
> MD> are on the IETF Standards Track (which goes Proposed -> Draft ->
> Standard).
> MD> Your wording is therefore too precise,
> 
> ah, okay.
> 
> MD> and you should change it to
> MD> the wording in the XML Spec (or something equivalent if you really
> need to).
> 
> Looking at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-existing-stds

> 
> IETF RFC 3066
> 
>     IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). RFC 3066: Tags for the
>     Identification of Languages, ed. H. Alvestrand. 2001. (See
>     http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt.)
> 
> I don't see any suitable "or its successor" text to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  W3C Graphics Activity Lead
>  Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
>

Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 11:26:15 UTC