draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp
ecifications, "stability", and extensions
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jan 10 14:09:35 CET 2005
[removing the ietf list, on the theory that all who care have subscribed to
ietf-languages by now]
--On torsdag, januar 06, 2005 07:42:33 -0800 Peter Constable
<petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
> RFC 3066 permits tags that have all kinds of internal structures. That
> is a problem as it will never allow us to derive much useful information
> from a tag with any confidence
actually that was quite deliberate at 1776 time - I wanted to point out
that the thing we were sending out was a *tag*, not a compendium.
For any given tag, I saw the world divided sharply into two groups:
- Those who knew what the tag meant, and could do something appropriate
with it. They would have no reason to "derive information from the tag".
- Those who did not know what the tag meant, and would treat it like any
other unknown tag
The purpose of a public IANA registry was that someone who cared could look
up a tag in the registry and figure out what it meant, so that it could do
The "language-range" construct is a departure from the principle.
3066bis has more-or-less the same principle, but applies it to the
*components* of a tag rather than to the whole tag.
And you still can't derive script info from the tag "sr".
More information about the Ietf-languages