Subject: [Ltru] Language tags in the future version of HTTP

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:17:09 +0100

That's relevant to us, I believe. Working Group httpbis is working on it:

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i13

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:21:11 -0500

> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i13

Looks like all's going well.  Since you're on that list, could you
persuade them to use "BCP 47" as the reference rather than "RFC 4646"?
Emphasize if necessary that "once a valid tag, always a valid tag"
so they need not fear automatically incorporating our updates.

In addition, ideally the discussion of language-tag matching in Section
14.4 should also defer to BCP 47.

-- 
And it was said that ever after, if any                 John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a               [email-masked]
great strength of will to turn it to other              http://ccil.org/~cowan
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering
in flame.   --"The Pyre of Denethor"

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:40:20 +0100

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:21:11AM -0500,
 John Cowan <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 20 lines which said:

> Since you're on that list, could you persuade them to use "BCP 47"
> as the reference rather than "RFC 4646"?

That's a difficult issue. What some people want, at this time, is to
*include* RFC 4646 ABNF in RFC 2616bis, in order to make it
self-sufficient (anyone knows if there are general IETF guidance here?
about cross-RFC references?)

The httpbis WS is chartered to make a *compatible* protocol, so
referring to a moving target (BCP 47) may scare them.

Do note that RFC 4930 still references RFC 3066 (while it was issued
after RFC 4646) for precisely this reason (staying compatible with old
sofwtare) and that was on purpose.