Why does it take so long?

Mark Davis mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Fri Jan 9 18:50:25 CET 2004

Well, a problem with the old grammar is that it constantly needed to be updated
with the registrations in order to know what was valid.

The only issue, I think, with old grammars would be the addition of % and . in
the extensions -- so that we can discuss.

► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at jtcsv.com>; <aphillips at webmethods.com>;
<ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Fri, 2004 Jan 09 09:03
Subject: Re: Why does it take so long?

> --On 9. januar 2004 08:12 -0800 Mark Davis <mark.davis at jtcsv.com> wrote:
> > 15 is nicer than 16 because 0..15 fits in 4 bits. Not a major issue, but
> > since it is such a minor change, and because 16 is chosen to have plenty
> > of discrimination space, it's a good change.
> but no tags have zero length, so you can start counting from one...
> > We tried to be careful to produce a grammar that accepted all generated
> > codes from RFC 3066, plus it grandfathered in all registered codes. So it
> > would be a complete superset of everything that worked under RFC 3066. It
> > would not allow in all codes that *could have been registered*, but that
> > is not a problem once it goes into effect and the registry switches over.
> > If you think that for any reason we have not accomplished this, please
> > let us know.
> I'm more worried about the grammar for 3066 not accepting all tags
> generated by the new grammar - this can lead to backwards compatibility
> issues, where parsers built to the old grammar will reject "new" tags.
> Likely, this is a non-problem, because most parsers just scan the whole
> thing in text mode anyway, but people who are on the list and know the code
> of those parsers should speak up now.
>                  Harald

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list