[Ltru] status of RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis in relation to HTTP
harald at alvestrand.no
Sat Mar 25 00:30:41 CET 2006
McDonald, Ira wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>> As a long-time IETFer:
>> Typically, these matters are handled on an ad-hoc
>> case-by-case basis in
>> which common sense prevails.
>> The razor in this case is "does something break?"
>> Equally important is that RFC ijkl should not have been approved for
>> publication if it creates an incompatibility problem in RFC
>> abcd, without
>> also updating/obsoleting RFC abcd.
> Precisely my point about RFC 2396 (Generic URI Syntax) and its
> successor RFC 3986. Dozens of IETF and other standards specs
> were broken by RFC 3986 doing away with some ABNF productions
> and renaming others. And Roy Fielding wasn't terribly polite
> about squashing my complaint. And the IESG blithely approved
> this core spec with this glaring deficiency.
> Peter - I think you're on your own - and note that RFC 1766
> doesn't exactly gracefully prepare programmers for 'script'
> subtags in the second position followed by 'region' subtags
> in the third position - quoting from page 2 of RFC 1766:
> The syntax of this tag in RFC-822 EBNF is:
> Language-Tag = Primary-tag *( "-" Subtag )
> Primary-tag = 1*8ALPHA
> Subtag = 1*8ALPHA
> In the first subtag:
> - All 2-letter codes are interpreted as ISO 3166 alpha-2
> country codes denoting the area in which the language is
> - Codes of 3 to 8 letters may be registered with the IANA by
> anyone who feels a need for it, according to the rules in
> chapter 5 of this document.
As author, I must beg to disagree.....
a sensible interpretation of the above is "if you want a meaning for
something that doesn't have 2 letters in the first subtag, look at the
registry to figure out what it means".
A person who looks at the registry will find (once he discovers the
right registry) a registry full of script subtags.
The only person who's affected by 1766->3066bis is the person who wants
to register something with 4 letters in the first subtag. He can't,
because that's reserved for scripts - and will be told so immediately
when he tries to follow the 1766 registration procedure.
What's not to like?
More information about the Ietf-languages