[Bug 3079] RFC3066 ref

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3079


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Keywords|                            |unclassified




------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2006-09-09 00:57 -------
Thank you for the assistance.  It looks as if the reference to
BCP 47 will do exactly what we need.

One question does arise, though, as I look at BCP 47 / RFC 4646.
I note that it provides an ABNF definition for the syntax of
well-formed language tags which is significantly more 
restrictive than that of RFC 3066, which is repeated in the
draft under review.

Should XML Schema 1.1 define the lexical space of xsd:language
using the grammar of RFC 3066, or of RFC 4646? Or what?

Does RFC 4646 allows itself to be more restrictive than
RFC 3066 because there is some evidence that the extra restrictions
will not actually invalidate existing data?  Or would we risk
inconveniencing users of XML Schema and of schemas written with
XML Schema, if we shifted to the more restrictive grammar?
Speaking for myself, I think the XML Schema WG would benefit from
knowing your views and those of the i18n WG on this matter.

Thanks.

Received on Saturday, 9 September 2006 00:57:51 UTC