W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2015

RE: LDP WG response to i18n-ISSUE-410: Language tags should reference BCP 47

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:59:16 +0000
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
CC: "public-ldp-comments@w3.org" <public-ldp-comments@w3.org>, Steven Atkin <atkin@us.ibm.com>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C0AF84C6D560544A17DDDEB68A9DFB52ECEF992@ex10-mbx-9007.ant.amazon.com>
> >
> > I guess what you're saying is that, although the "optional language tag"
> should be a language tag, any string could appear there and it would not be a
> processing/parsing error if something that didn't follow BCP47 appeared
> there. Is that correct?
> Right. Turtle Patch treats it as a string. Other stuff in the RDF stack would
> break if one didn't at least follow obs-language-tag (SPARQL a '-'-sensitive
> langmatches function and probably some UIs crack the'-'s) but nothing would
> treat a rigorous LanguageTag differently from an obs-language-tag.
Okay, that matches what I recall of reviewing those other specifications. 

I do tend to favor being consistent, even when being non-normative, in talking about what a field can contain. It is good to point out that, although a value is "just a string" in one place, it might cause failures elsewhere later if it isn't actually well-formed (at least to obs-language-tag). A family of specifications should all use the same requirements.

In any case, I don't object to using the wording now in place and don't think it needs to be belabored. I also note that the link to RDF 1.1 ends up at a definition that includes a "well-formed" requirement (that requirement is stronger than obs-language-tag).

Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 15:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:07 UTC