Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1099] WGLC add empty extension registry

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:23:32 -0700

(switching to the correct Subject line)

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> I like the self-declaration leading comment; there should be
>> one for the subtag registry too.
>
> There are no such comments in section 3.1, the <registry> ABNF
>
>> # Language Tag Extensions Registry (see RFC XXXX)
>> File-Date: 2005-08-13
>
> So that's wrong, the line starting with "#" is no record, and
> the first record must be a File-Date.

Sadly, what Frank says is true.  There is no provision in the record-jar
ABNF for a header or other file-level comment, introduced by # or
anything else.  We can't do this without amending the ABNF.

Furthermore, now that I notice it, there is also no provision in Section
3.6 for a File-Date record in the extension registry.  It is defined as
consisting solely of records in the format shown in Figure 6.  (I would
suggest, however, that the leading and trailing %% in Figure 6 be
treated as examples only, and that %% be used only as a separator
between records, as in the subtag registry.)

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:34:00 -0700

Hi -

As a technical contributor...

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:23 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1099] WGLC add empty extension registry
...
> between records, as in the subtag registry.)
...

I disagree.  Section 3.6 says "[t]his registry MUST use the record-jar
format described by the ABNF in Section 3.1."  That would give it a
File-Date record.

Randy

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:59:08 +0200 (CEST)

> format described by the ABNF in Section 3.1."  That would give it a

Not directly by the ABNF, but by the text following it.

Since I like the file self declarations, I would suggest to
make the following text replacement, with obvious consequences:

---------------------OLD TEXT-----------------
The first record in the file contains the single field whose field-name is
"File-Date".
The field-body of this record contains the last modification date of this
copy of the registry,
making it possible to compare different versions of the registry. The
registry on the IANA
website is the most current. Versions with an older date than that one are
not up-to-date.

File-Date: 2004-06-28
%%
---------------------NEW TEXT-----------------
The first record in the file SHALL contain two fields whose field-names
are "File-Date" and "Description".
The field-body of the "File-Date" field of this record SHALL contain the
last modification date of this copy
of the registry. This makes it possible to compare different versions of
the registry. The registry on the
IANA website is the most current. Versions with an older date than that
one are not up-to-date.
The field-body of the "Description" field SHALL contain a short comment on
what the content of the
registry is. For example,

File-Date: 2004-06-28
Description: IANA Language subtag registry (see RFC XXXX)
-----------------------------------------

This would then apply to both registries. (Maybe some other sentence needs
to be amended too.) Note the introduction of the "SHALL"s above, to make
it proper standardese.

   /kent k