W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > October 2005

Re: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:12:33 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>,"spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org

At 09:55 31/10/2005, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>Hi all,
>As part of my review of EMMA, see
>I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather than
>RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:
>RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of Languages).
>What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice),
>which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is
>represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP
>47, currently represented by RFC 3066"?

I support but would advise against "currently represented by ..." as 
we may see a few numbering changes.

1. the WG-ltru discussed many times the intent of RFC 3066 ter, 
quater,etc. The RFC 3066 bis refers to ISO 639-1 and 2. So, there 
will be changes to support ISO 639-3, then ISO 639-6. May be for ISO 
639-4 too if needed and date do not match.

2. I strongly oppose RFC 3066 bis: I know of various intents to 
object it (architectural (internationalization) premises, heavy 
commercial, political and legal load, RFC 3935 principle of 
competence) and replace it. The use of the BCP 47 vehicle would be the best.

>The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for "Tags
>for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
>3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third number.

It is in "IESG Evaluation :: AD follow-up, with appeal of an AD 
proposed change after LC.

Due to the xx66 numbering of 1766, 3066, a "Route 66" thread 
developed at the WG-ltru, calling for another xx66 number. As a 
result the "internationalization" doctrine has been nicknamed "Route 
666". BCP 47 is neutral.

>In the i18n core wg, we thought that to avoid the need to update specs
>which just want to refer to "Tags for the Identification of Languages", we
>should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
>identification as its topic.

RFC 3066 bis makes its ABNF exclusive. Other (existing and future) 
Language Identification tags could have been easily aggregated in the 
RFC 3066 bis (one of the authors signs as W3C, but made clear he does 
not represent a W3C positions). I proposed the simple inclusion of an 
RFC 4151 conformant userspace to that end: there is a private use 
space for walled garden applications, but Harald Alvestrand 
documented why it cannot support external standards (a lame example 
documenting the use of this user tagging in RFC 3066 bis is under 
removal attempt).
Received on Monday, 31 October 2005 12:28:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:09:33 UTC