Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050806113648.03050cd0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:51:46 +0200
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

May be should I ask now a question I always wanted to ask. Addison co-signs 
his Draft on language tags as a member of the W3C. He explained well the 
problems he faces with XML (Mark did not explain the ones he has with CLDR 
locales, and I have been prevented to explain those I have with the 
DNS-locales).

So, we have an Internet standard process oriented BCP Draft, by the W3C 
generously imposed to all the Internet protocols, to document the language 
sub-class of tag object class.

There is a document approved as an RFC on the Editor's desk which describes 
"the tag URIs also known as 'tags'", i.e. that tag class. This document is 
authored by gentlemen from HP and W3C. This Draft by gentlemen from IBM and 
W3C. This RFC soon to be published (draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt) is the 
Internet document of reference we used as a source of inspiration when 
documenting the "x-tags", trying to keep two W3C Drafts consistent. 
Everyone observed it is not that it is not easy.

The Kindberg/Hawke RFC, approved by the IESG, has still be less considered 
by this WG than the IESG Charter. It is however as well worded as the Draft 
on some points. So after having tried with the "x-" proposition, we 
followed Lee Guillam and disengaged through the "0-" escaped sequence. But 
technically it is unlikely that Draft be accepted if the "x-" does not 
support Kindberg RFC inheritance.

The difference between the two documents are:
- the Kindberg/Hawke RFC has been approved, is open and tag class generic, 
respects ISO 1179, and includes a disclaimer that it may  not reflect the 
views and opinion of the W3C
- the Draft has already failed two Last Calls, is constrained and limited 
to tag sub-class, is not interested in aligning on ISO 11179 and does not 
include an IESG or W3C disclaimer.

The problem is that the ABNFs of the two documents (as it was opposed to 
me) are not compatible. The "x-" format I proposed was Kindberg/Hawke 
conformant, but was denied by the W3C author of the Draft.

There is therefore a need for the Draft either to include a disclaimer that 
the "W3C language tag" does not represent the views and opinion of the W3C 
anymore than the Kindberg/Hawke, or that to the contrary the ambiguity of 
the Kindberg/Hawker RFC is now clarify and the Draft do represent the views 
and opinions of the W3C and Unicode, at least for the part of the tag class 
documenting languages.

Otherwise it is likely that the Draft will be opposed the IESG approved 
definition of a "tag". The solution seems obvious. It is simply to modify 
the "x-" ABNF as:

"encapsulates a RFC X- ABNF conformant tag"

and to remove the adverse language in 2.2.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru