[Ltru] status of RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis in relation to HTTP Accept-Language

[Frank Ellermann]

John Cowan wrote:

> How did section D.2 of RFC 3986 fail to satisfy you?

Off topic, but D.2 is utter dubious:

1 - uric, with appendix D.2 I get:

    1738 XCHAR  : ALNUM ! $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; = ? @ _
    2396 URIC   : ALNUM ! $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; = ? @ _ ~

    2396 URIC   : ALNUM ! $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; = ? @ _ ~
    3986 URIC_D2: ALNUM   $ % &         + , - . / : ; = ? @ _ ~

3986 D.2 doesn't add <reserved> like 1738 and 2396.  If I try to fix it
by adding <reserved> also in 3986 the result is more plausible:

    2396 URIC : ALNUM !   $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; = ? @     _ ~
    3986 URIC3: ALNUM ! # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / : ; = ? @ [ ] _ ~

1 - mark, with appendix D.2 I get:

    1738 UNRESERVED1: ALNUM ! $ ' ( ) * + , - . _
    2396 UNRESERVED2: ALNUM !   ' ( ) *     - . _ ~
    1738 SAFE_EXTRA :       ! $ ' ( ) * + , - . _
    2396 MARK       :       !   ' ( ) *     - . _ ~

In other words <mark> is the same as <unreserved> excluding <alphanum>.

    2396 UNRESERVED2: ALNUM ! ' ( ) * - . _ ~
    3986 UNRESERVED3: ALNUM           - . _ ~
    2396 MARK       :       ! ' ( ) * - . _ ~
    3986 MARK3      :       ! ' ( ) * - . _ ~

In 3986 D.2 it's the same old <mark>, no proper subset of <unreserved>.
IMHO it should be only "-", ".", "_", "~".

3 - nouric, determined indirectly as all VCHAR excl. the (fixed) <uric>:

    1738 UNSAFE      : " # % < > [ \ ] ^ ` { | } ~
    2396 DELIM_UNWISE: " # % < > [ \ ] ^ ` { | }
    3986 NOURIC3     : "     < >   \   ^ ` { | }

That's rather confusing if you try to "port" old 1738 syntax
to 3986.  The missing <uric> (or <nouric> ?) affected one of
Martin's older drafts (mailto or archived-at), and my attempt
to extract news-and-nntp from 1738.

                         Bye, Frank