[Bug 3079] RFC3066 ref

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


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|unclassified                |decided, needsDrafting




------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-12-14 19:47 -------
The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue at its teleconference of
14 December 2007.  The current reference to RFC 3066 is non-normative: the
xsd:language datatype is intended to hold language codes as defined by RFC 3066
or its successor(s), but type validity is defined solely by a simple regular
expression, and a note points out that for the full checking of language codes,
additional work is required beyond checking for type validity.

We did not choose to change that basic pattern; implicitly, the WG's answer
to the question in comment #2 and the suggestion in comment #3 was:  no,
we will retain the current regular expression, which is very simple, and not
attempt to model the more restrictive grammar of RFC 4646.  (This means there
is some gap between the strings which are type-valid against xsd:language
and the set of strings accepted by the grammar in RFC 4646, but there is
already a gap between the type-valid strings and the set of correct language
identifiers, and changing to the grammar of RFC 4646 will not close that gap.)

I note that the WG's decision not to reproduce the grammar from RFC 4646
also helps insulate XSDL from changes to the definition of correct language
codes in revisions of the relevant IETF specs, by a form of loose coupling.

We did agree to refer to BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066 as appropriate; the
editors were so instructed.  (I'm marking this 'decided' as well as
needsDrafting, as a reminder that the WG does not want to see the wording
before it's integrated into the status quo.)

In view of the purpose of BCP 47 and other documents in the BCP series, it
may seem unnecessary to retain the words "or its successor(s)", but I expect
we'll keep them just in case.  (But we'll delete the reference to the standards
track.)

François, as originator of the issue, please indicate your acceptance of this
disposition by changing the status of the bug to RESOLVED.  (Or if François
is unavailable, perhaps Felix Sasaki can act in his stead on behalf of the
i18n WG -- assuming this issue was raised on their behalf.)  If the WG
doesn't hear from either of you in a month, we'll assume you're happy.

Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 19:47:36 UTC