- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:08:04 +0900
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-svg@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:57:48 +0900, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > > 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. 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. from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-lang-tag is that the text you are thinking of, Martin? > > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 12:08:37 UTC