Subject: [Ltru] RE: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:29:14 +0000

That (ie via BCP 47) is how I plan to refer to the Language Tags RFC 
in IPTC Specifications.

Note one slight gremlin: the title of the BCP will, presumably, vary 
with the title of the referenced RFC.  For example, the latest ID 
has the title "Tags for Identifying Languages"[1], while BCP 47 
currently has the title "Tags for the Identification of Languages", 
which is the title of RFC 3066.

## A question to the LTRU WG: Is the change of title intentional? ##

[1] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-phillips-langtags/

Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager, Reuters, www.reuters.com
Vice-Chair, News Architecture Working Party, IPTC, www.iptc.org/dev

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: 31 October 2005 08:56
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

Hi all,

As part of my review of EMMA, see
http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/emma-review.html
I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather
than
RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:

RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of
Languages).
What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice),
which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is
represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP
47, currently represented by RFC 3066"?

The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for
"Tags
for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third
number.
In the i18n core wg, we thought that to avoid the need to update specs
which just want to refer to "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
we
should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
identification as its topic.

Although this originated in the rfc 3066(bis) discussion, I think it is
a
general question of how to refer to RFCs / BCPs. This disussion started
on  
the w3t-arch list, but Dan Connolly suggested to discuss this also on  
these lists here. Any comments / opinions?

Best,

Felix

-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:01:28 +0100

Misha Wolf wrote:

> Is the change of title intentional?

There were discussions about "identification" vs. "helping
to identify", but that was about the abstract / intro, not
the title.  The "new" title reflects this, but I can't say
that it was "intentional" (from my personal POV).  The new
title was already used for the old pre-LTRU 3066bis drafts.

>| The draft of rfc 3066bis which has now been approved by
>| the IESG will have a third number.

Will, yes, approved, not yet, formally:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=41198

                         Bye, Frank