RE: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

That (ie via BCP 47) is how I plan to refer to the Language Tags RFC 
in IPTC Specifications.

Note one slight gremlin: the title of the BCP will, presumably, vary 
with the title of the referenced RFC.  For example, the latest ID 
has the title "Tags for Identifying Languages"[1], while BCP 47 
currently has the title "Tags for the Identification of Languages", 
which is the title of RFC 3066.

## A question to the LTRU WG: Is the change of title intentional? ##


Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager, Reuters,
Vice-Chair, News Architecture Working Party, IPTC,

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: 31 October 2005 08:56
Subject: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

Hi all,

As part of my review of EMMA, see
I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather
RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:

RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of
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"?

The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for
for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third
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",
should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
identification as its topic.

Although this originated in the rfc 3066(bis) discussion, I think it is
general question of how to refer to RFCs / BCPs. This disussion started
the w3t-arch list, but Dan Connolly suggested to discuss this also on  
these lists here. Any comments / opinions?



        Visit our Internet site at

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Monday, 31 October 2005 10:29:25 UTC