- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:42:38 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4850 ------- Comment #2 from fsasaki@w3.org 2008-01-17 02:42 ------- Hello Michael, thank you and the XML Schema Working Group for looking into this issue. The i18n Core Working Group discussed your response on our call yesterday, see http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-core-minutes#item08 In general, we agree with your resolution. We have two comments left, see below. First, we think you do not need to say "successor" for the reference to BCP 47. BCP 47 always refers to the latest RFC used for language identification and matching. The term "successor" would only be needed for a reference to such an RFC, e.g. "RFC 4646 or its successor". Second, for the ABNF, we agree that you don't need to refer to the ABNF defined in RFC 4646. However, it would be great if you could add a reference to the notion of "well-formed language tags", saying (even non-normatively) that checking of well-formedness of language tags is what an XML Schema processor might consider. The principle of well-formedness for language tags leads directly to the ABNF, see section 2.2.9. "Classes of Conformance" of RFC 4646 for the necessary definition. In this way, you would promote the right behavior, even if you do not update the regular expression for the language data type. Thank you, Felix
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 02:42:45 UTC