Subject: [Ltru] Re: Remove extlang from ABNF?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:42:56 -0800

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> But I urge that an inline comment in the ABNF use the word OBSOLETE 
>> and the text make clear that conforming implementations MUST NOT 
>> produce or consume "extlang" subtags.
>
> Of course, the only difference between that and removing extlang from 
> the ABNF is the ability to claim, in *some* sense, the ABNF has not 
> changed. But also of course, there is a very real change of syntax, so 
> that claim is somewhat vacuous.

Peter has a good point here.

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> My understanding is that if we leave the production in the ABNF, such 
> tags would still be well-formed. I don't think we can have it both 
> ways. The tags would be well-formed but obsolete.

This probably depends on what people expect from the concept of 
"well-formed."

> I think there is (at least) rough consensus that we do not want to 
> completely remove the extlang production from the ABNF in RFC 4646bis. 
> (I only see Frank cleary opposing this, everybody else is either for 
> it or is okay with it.)

I tend to agree with Frank (and Peter's comment) that if extlangs no 
longer exist, we ought not to pretend in the ABNF that they do.  But I'm 
no ABNF lawyer, so I'll defer to those who have more experience here.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru