New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

[Mark Davis]

> Are you claiming that
>
> sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu

> is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
> proposal?

Clearly not. But

  x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu

is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current
RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as

  sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu

(although of course this particular combination would certainly never get
in).

Inutile d'aller plu loin...

There is no use to trying to declare a difference in conformant lengths
between these two documents when one doesn't exist. If you want to do
something productive, you should make a practical suggestion for a change in
the current text of the new draft. If the new draft is to backward
compatible, then it has to be worded carefully. I haven't thought it through
at length, but would need to be something like:

- A conformant implementation need not support the storage of language tags
which exceed a specified length. However, such a limitation must be clearly
documented, including the disposition of any longer tags (for example,
whether an error value is generated or the language tag is truncated -- and
if so, how it is to be truncated).

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly at erols.com>
To: <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Cc: <ietf at ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:20
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP


> >  Date: 2004-12-12 13:00
> >  From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>
> >  To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no, ietf at ietf.org
> >  CC: ietf at ietf.org
>
> > Your claim that the RFC 3066 ABNF itself has a restriction in length is
also
> > clearly false. I will quote that again since you seem somehow not to
have
> > seen it:
>
> I made no such claim; indeed it was I who pointed out
> that RFC 3066 *theoretically* permits an infinite-
> length tag.  On that basis alone (even if you missed
> the fact that I am an implementor of RFC 3066
> language tags) you can be sure that I am well aware
> of the RFC 3066 ABNF.
>
> > Both documents establish many further limitations on the contents of
> > language tags in the text of each document. Ignoring those stated
> > limitations will, in both documents, result in nonconformant language
tags.
>
> Are you claiming that
>
> sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu
>
> is nonconformant per some specification in the draft
> proposal?  It is certainly too long to be used in an
> RFC 2047/2231 encoded-word.  It is much longer than
> any registered RFC 3066 language tag, and the draft
> proposes removing full tag registration procedure
> restrictions as well as decoupling use from registration
> that would combine to permit such an abomination.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>