New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
dewell at adelphia.net
Tue Dec 14 22:01:54 CET 2004
Man, you miss a lot when you only subscribe to the digest.
Vernon Schryver <vjs at calcite dot rhyolite dot com> wrote:
> On the contrary, what the authors of a standard intend is not
> normative. As much as possible, every standard must say what it
> means, because what a standard says *is* its technical content. For
> example, I'm unhappy about an apparent sentiment that would put ABNF
> on a lower footing that the English text. I think I'm like most
> implementors and perhaps unlike non-engineers in reversing that
> precedence. Whenever I read an RFC, I rely first and foremost on the
> ABNF. I use the English only for hints, and follow the ABNF instead
> of the English whenever there is a conflict.
It's not a matter of putting the ABNF on a lower footing than the prose.
They work together. They have to.
The "grandfathered" production in the RFC 3066bis ABNF is intended only
for the 24 entries (not 46, as I wrote earlier) that are carried over
from the RFC 3066 registry and that don't otherwise conform to the RFC
3066bis syntax. Take a look at the items marked "grandfathered" in the
If you can write a reasonable "grandfathered" production in ABNF that
will allow this set of tags and no others, such that the ABNF can be
used without also referring to the prose, then I salute you.
More information about the Ietf-languages