RE: Resources updates in Lang Decl BP doc

At 19:56 06/07/04, Richard Ishida wrote:
>[Copying in Core]
>
>Ok, I made changes to the page based on your comments below.  Thanks.
>
>There will be a major edit to the page when the specs are finally published.
>
>I don't always notice when these documents change.  Given your involvement
>in this stuff, could I ask you to send a note to www-international each time
>there is something to report?
>
>Btw, I'm still unclear about some aspects of the scope of the label BCP 47.
>As I understand it, it will refer to both the 'tags' and 'matching'
>documents.

correct.

>I have one or two questions about that:

(turned out to be quite a few more questions than that)

>1. Does it refer to those specs right now - presumably it doesn't refer to
>RFC 3066bis yet? Currently ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/bcp/bcp47.txt points
>to RFC 3066.  

correct.

>2. Where is it defined what BCP 47 represents.

The most 'official' definition is probably
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#BCPbyBCP. But this only
reflects the status after publication.

>3. Can we be sure that someone is planning to update the link to BCP 47

For that one, sure, that's part of the RFC Editor's job.

>4. What will the link to BCP 47 point to, given that there are two documents
>and it can't point directly to both at the same time?

Difficult to guess. As an example, I note that
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#BCPbyBCP lists RFCs 4288 and RFC 4289
as BCP 13, but ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/bcp/bcp13.txt links to the former
only.

>5. I'm assuming that BCP 47 will refer to both the 'tags' and 'matching'
>documents, and that these documents will have different RFC numbers.  Is
>that correct?  

Yes.

>6. Is there a precedent for one BCP to refer to more than one RFC?

Yes, see above.

>7. Or is there a possibility of the two documents being combined into one?

No way, at least not this time round.

>8. What about the draft that outlines the initial registry, presumably that
>won't be part of BCP 47?

Yes. It will be published as a shell (only a note that the contents has
been moved to the subtag registry) in order not to cause confusion
(people looking at that RFC rather than the registry).

>9. Should W3C specs say they conform to BCP 47 and reference BCP 47 with the
>above URI, even if they happen to be specifically interested in just one of
>the two documents in question, or should they reference the specific
>document.

The advantage for using "BCP 47" is less that you get two documents
for one, but that it will get updated when there is a newer version.

Regards,    Martin.

>Cheers,
>RI
>
>
>============
>Richard Ishida
>Internationalization Lead
>W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
>http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
>http://www.w3.org/International/
>http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
>> Sent: 04 July 2006 03:54
>...
>> As a separate issue, please update
>> http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html.
>> The matching draft has passed IETF Last Call and is now going 
>> through the IESG approval process. It doesn't make sense to 
>> create such a redirection page if you don't keep it up to date :-(.
>> The current version of the draft is -15.
>> 
>> Also, the filename of that page and title are confusing.
>> The title is "Internet-Draft: BCP 47". This is almost a 
>> contradition, and quite temporary. It would be better to have 
>> a page for BCP 47, and describe the current state.
>> 
>> Also, the text "Latest Version" should be taken away from the 
>> IANA registry. This is a living document, not a frozen one, 
>> so "Latest Version" is confusing. There are no other 
>> versions. It would be similar to writing Latest Version: 
>> Today's weather.
>> 


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2006 09:07:49 UTC