- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:04:56 -0400
- To: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Internationalization Core Working Group <www-international@w3.org>
- Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Proposal to address I18N-ISSUE-193: reference obs-language-tag instead of defining your own =============================================================== Issue: Section 6.5 (Grammar) defines LANGTAG far more permissively than BCP 47 does--even in its obsolete forms. (implicit) proposals from I18N: 1 Provide no LANGTAG production, instead reference the Language-Tag or obs-language-tag production. -- hard to read. grammar languages are different. current grammar is copy-and-paste-able into a grammar tool. 2 Incorporate the Language-Tag production into Turtle's grammar. -- The full langtag grammar is bigger than the entire Turtle grammar. 3 Incorporate the obs-language-tag production into Turtle's grammar. -- There are some specs which use the XML grammar notation http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-notation . This notation does not include {n} or {m,n}. The cost to readers of rolling our own grammar is relatively high; the number of erroneous language tags which are caught by changing from 1 LANGTAG ::= '@' [a-zA-Z]+ ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]+)* to 2 LANGTAG ::= '@' [a-zA-Z]{1,8} ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]+){1,8} is quite low. 2 doesn't catch human errors like "@english" and 1 already catches likly serialized unitialized strings. 4 Point out that RDF references BCP 47 without complicating the Turtle grammar. ++ adopted Proposal: preserve the current grammar production, adding this text as a comment [[ Note that the <a href="http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#dfn-language-tag">RDF abstract syntax</a> asserts that "the language tag must be well-formed according to section 2.2.9 of [BCP47]". ]] Please indicate whether this address the stated issue. -- -ericP
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 16:05:32 UTC