Registry fixed (was: Re: Records Missing Required Field: jkp, nph, tvt)
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Aug 28 06:47:59 CEST 2012
Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:
> Since these particular errors were simply missing fields that were
> deemed required, rather than other, more serious syntactic issues
> (like errant or misused symbols, or encoding issues), the version of
> the Registry should hold.
>
> In this instance, the errors were localized to individual records,
> which I don't think should invalid the entire Registry version. I
> think, in the future, only issues that affect the parsing of the
> entire registry should invalidate a Registry version.
I don't agree. Section 3.1.1 says:
registry = record *("%%" CRLF record)
which means the three-percent-sign separator was invalid, and Section
3.1.2 says:
Each record MUST contain at least one of each of the following
fields:
...
o 'Added'
which means the three language subtag records without Added fields were
invalid.
For my money, any error in the Registry that violates a syntactic (ABNF)
rule or a constraint like those in 3.1.2 renders the whole file invalid.
I would make an exception for "Each field is terminated by the newline
sequence CRLF" since I don't think there's any realistic way to enforce
CRLF vs. LF over HTTP.
But having said all this, I appreciate the interest you're taking in the
details.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list