Registry fixed (was: Re: Records Missing Required Field: jkp, nph, tvt)
doug at ewellic.org
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
Each record MUST contain at least one of each of the following
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
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages