Re: Official ISO 639 changes

The W3C I18N WG/IG, together with the W3C XML Core WG,
are aware of the situation and are working on the relevant
errata for this. Our current plans are to make some fixes
(to make clear that XML parsers should not enforce Production 35,
in order to be forward-compatible) as soon as time permits, and
the rest (updating from RFC 1766 to its successor) as soon as
that is out.

Regards,   Martin.

At 00/04/25 19:31 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
>XML will want to take advantage of the increased functionality which the
>revision of RFC 1766 (to include ISO 639-2 codes) will permit.
>
>Ar 09:24 -0800 2000-04-25, scr$ByP(Bbh Elliotte Rusty Harold:
> >
> >Has anybody noticed that XML 1.0 requires 2-letter and forbids
> >three-letter language codes? From section 2.1.2 of the XML 1.0 spec:
> >
> >The Langcode may be any of the following:
> >
> >   a two-letter language code as defined by [ISO 639], "Codes for the
> >   representation of names
> >   a language identifier registered with the Internet Assigned
> >   Numbers Authority [IANA]; these begin with the prefix "i-" (or "I-")
> >   a language identifier assigned by the user, or agreed on between parties
> >   in private use; these must begin with the prefix "x-" or "X-" in
> >   order to ensure that they do not conflict with names later
> >   standardized or registered with IANA
> >
> >Production 35 enforces this constraint.
> >I think XML needs another erratum here to fix this.
>
>Please wait until the RFC 1766 revision is published.
>
>Michael Everson  **  Everson Gunn Teoranta  **   http://www.egt.ie
>15 Port Chaeimhghein $B%X(Bochtarach; Baile $B%A(Btha Cliath 2; $B%N(Bire/Ireland
>Vox +353 1 478 2597 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Mob +353 86 807 9169
>27 P$BaJ(Brc an Fh$BqJ(Bthlinn;  Baile an Bh$B…U(Bhair;  Co. $B%A(Btha Cliath; $B%N(Bire
>

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2000 05:44:17 UTC