- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 11:22:58 -0500
- To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
On May 30, 2011, at 3:53 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > RDF-ISSUE-64 (langtag-rfc): RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? [RDF General] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: RDF General > > RDF Concepts defines language tags with reference to RFC 3066. > > RFC 3066 is obsoleted by RFC 5646. > > Should language-tagged literals in RDF 1.1 still be defined in terms of the (simple) RFC 3066, or in terms of the (much more hairy) RFC 5646? Seems like a no-brainer to me. We should refer to the latest spec, not to any obsoleted spec. Users who seriously care about language tagging will presumably require the latest specs. Users who don't will not give a toss one way or the other. Making our lives easier by avoiding hairiness is not an option. Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 16:23:29 UTC