Registry fixed (was: Re: Records Missing Required Field: jkp, nph, tvt)

Doug Ewell doug at
Tue Aug 28 06:47:59 CEST 2012

Gordon P. Hemsley wrote:

> Since these particular errors were simply missing fields that were
> deemed required, rather than other, more serious syntactic issues
> (like errant or misused symbols, or encoding issues), the version of
> the Registry should hold.
> In this instance, the errors were localized to individual records,
> which I don't think should invalid the entire Registry version. I
> think, in the future, only issues that affect the parsing of the
> entire registry should invalidate a Registry version.

I don't agree. Section 3.1.1 says:

registry   = record *("%%" CRLF record)

which means the three-percent-sign separator was invalid, and Section 
3.1.2 says:

Each record MUST contain at least one of each of the following
o  'Added'

which means the three language subtag records without Added fields were 

For my money, any error in the Registry that violates a syntactic (ABNF) 
rule or a constraint like those in 3.1.2 renders the whole file invalid. 
I would make an exception for "Each field is terminated by the newline 
sequence CRLF" since I don't think there's any realistic way to enforce 
CRLF vs. LF over HTTP.

But having said all this, I appreciate the interest you're taking in the 

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell ­ 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list