[webfinger] Default language (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-10.txt> (WebFinger) to Proposed Standard

["Martin J. Dürst"]

On 2013/04/03 2:39, Mike Jones wrote:
> I'd switch to using "und".  WebFinger has a normative dependency on RFC 5646 (Tags for Identifying Languages), which specifies the use of "und".  We have only an informative dependency upon RFC 6415 (Web Host Metadata) .  And I agree that the use of "default" in RFC 6415 is a spec defect that we should separately try to have corrected, either through the errata process or by publishing an updated spec.  We certainly shouldn't emulate the spec defect.
>
> But correcting 6415 shouldn't hold up WebFinger, which should just use the convention in the spec that we normatively reference.

This makes a lot of sense indeed.   Regards,   Martin.


>
> 				-- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: webfinger-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:webfinger-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:20 AM
> To: '"Martin J. Dürst"'; 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'
> Cc: webfinger at ietf.org; ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: [webfinger] Default language (Was: Last Call:<draft-ietf-appsawg-webfinger-10.txt>  (WebFinger) to Proposed Standard
>
> Martin,
>
>>> In this case, it seems the working group made a wrong choice, but
>>> deliberately.
>>
>> I think it's going a bit too far to say that there was a deliberate
>> choice.
>>
>> I wasn't there, but it most probably just went like this: somebody got
>> the idea that having a default would be a good idea, somebody proposed
>> to use "default", and that was it. There was nobody who checked
>> whether somebody else already had similar ideas (not only is there
>> "und", but there's also "i-default"),...
>>
>> So there probably wasn't much deliberation. Also, as a draft, RFC 6415
>> was draft-hammer-hostmeta, so there wasn't a WG at all.
>
> You're probably right.  I really do not care whether we use "und" or "default", but I do like consistency.
>
> So, what can we do?  We have a few options:
> 1) Leave "default" in place for consistency with RFC 6415
> 2) Change "default" to "und" and introduce inconsistency
> 3) Change "default" to "und" in both specs
>      a) WebFinger would be easy
>      b) We could revise RFC 6415 or file an errata (perhaps it is a mistake)
>
> I'll consult with Eran about this, but what does the WG prefer?
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
> _______________________________________________
> webfinger mailing list
> webfinger at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webfinger
>