[Ltru] status of RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis in relation to HTTP Accept-Language

[Mark Crispin]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Peter Constable wrote:
> One more time... If anyone is to be excessively pedantic about RFC 1766,
> then *far, far* more is allowed in a 1766 tag than is allowed under
> 3066bis -- under 1766, there is *very little* that can be assumed about
> the internal structure of tags. That doesn't in any way suggest
> abolishing subtags; it just means that if all you know is RFC 1766 then
> you don't know very much.

Peter, I think that you and I are loudly agreeing.  The point is that 
3066bis, which creates specifics, doesn't break 1766 software which did 
not (could not) know about such specifics.

Therefore there is no problem.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.