[Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

r12a

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/

Comment 2
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
Editorial/substantive: S
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
6.7.1

Comment:
We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.


We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis is expected to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC 3066ter).




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Addison Phillips-2

Richard remarked:

> We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since
> RFC3066bis is expected to become obsolete soon after it is
> released (to make way for RFC 3066ter).

If you reference BCP 47 there is no need to say "or its successor", since
BCP 47 is always the most recent set of documents. I had previously
suggested the formulation:

"[BCP 47] which is currently represented by [RFC 3066bis]"

If you reference draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt (i.e. RFC 3066bis), then
you'll want to use the successor formula.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.  



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

r12a


Hmm. I guess I was just in one of my unconfident moods...  Do you believe
that we can guarrantee that all successors to RFC 3066 will be referred to
as BCP 47?

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 11 July 2006 20:54
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>
> Richard remarked:
>
> > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> successor"
> > after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis
> is expected
> > to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC
> > 3066ter).
>
> If you reference BCP 47 there is no need to say "or its
> successor", since BCP 47 is always the most recent set of
> documents. I had previously suggested the formulation:
>
> "[BCP 47] which is currently represented by [RFC 3066bis]"
>
> If you reference draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt (i.e. RFC
> 3066bis), then you'll want to use the successor formula.
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
>
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.  
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Addison Phillips-2

For the normative part that defines language tags and their syntax? Very.
The IESG has said on numerous occasions in this whole adventure that the BCP
and STD numbers are stable and reliable pointers to the current version of
any particular item. The fact that draft-registry is BCP 47 and not on the
STD track is in some ways an outgrowth of that very fact.

Addison

PS> Of course, I gave up a long time ago thinking I could predict anything
at the IETF. "Past performance is not an indicator of future returns." But
this seems pretty certain.

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: mardi 11 juillet 2006 13:35
> To: 'Addison Phillips'; [hidden email];
> [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>
>
>
> Hmm. I guess I was just in one of my unconfident moods...  Do
> you believe
> that we can guarrantee that all successors to RFC 3066 will
> be referred to
> as BCP 47?
>
> RI
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: 11 July 2006 20:54
> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> > Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
> >
> > Richard remarked:
> >
> > > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> > successor"
> > > after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis
> > is expected
> > > to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC
> > > 3066ter).
> >
> > If you reference BCP 47 there is no need to say "or its
> > successor", since BCP 47 is always the most recent set of
> > documents. I had previously suggested the formulation:
> >
> > "[BCP 47] which is currently represented by [RFC 3066bis]"
> >
> > If you reference draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt (i.e. RFC
> > 3066bis), then you'll want to use the successor formula.
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > Addison Phillips
> > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
> >
> > Internationalization is an architecture.
> > It is not a feature.  
> >
> >
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Martin J. Dürst

I agree with Addison.         Regards,   Martin.

At 05:57 06/07/12, Addison Phillips wrote:

>
>For the normative part that defines language tags and their syntax? Very.
>The IESG has said on numerous occasions in this whole adventure that the BCP
>and STD numbers are stable and reliable pointers to the current version of
>any particular item. The fact that draft-registry is BCP 47 and not on the
>STD track is in some ways an outgrowth of that very fact.
>
>Addison
>
>PS> Of course, I gave up a long time ago thinking I could predict anything
>at the IETF. "Past performance is not an indicator of future returns." But
>this seems pretty certain.
>
>Addison Phillips
>Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
>
>Internationalization is an architecture.
>It is not a feature.  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email]
>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
>> Sent: mardi 11 juillet 2006 13:35
>> To: 'Addison Phillips'; [hidden email];
>> [hidden email]
>> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I guess I was just in one of my unconfident moods...  Do
>> you believe
>> that we can guarrantee that all successors to RFC 3066 will
>> be referred to
>> as BCP 47?
>>
>> RI
>>
>> ============
>> Richard Ishida
>> Internationalization Lead
>> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
>> http://www.w3.org/International/
>> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>>  
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> > Sent: 11 July 2006 20:54
>> > To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> > Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>> >
>> > Richard remarked:
>> >
>> > > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
>> > successor"
>> > > after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis
>> > is expected
>> > > to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC
>> > > 3066ter).
>> >
>> > If you reference BCP 47 there is no need to say "or its
>> > successor", since BCP 47 is always the most recent set of
>> > documents. I had previously suggested the formulation:
>> >
>> > "[BCP 47] which is currently represented by [RFC 3066bis]"
>> >
>> > If you reference draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt (i.e. RFC
>> > 3066bis), then you'll want to use the successor formula.
>> >
>> > Addison
>> >
>> > Addison Phillips
>> > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
>> >
>> > Internationalization is an architecture.
>> > It is not a feature.  
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[hidden email]    


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Felix Sasaki
In reply to this post by r12a

Hello i18n core,

This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for our discussion .

Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement it like the
reference at
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#langinfo-implementation
.

Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear
 from you , we will assume this issue as closed.

Regards,

Felix
[hidden email] wrote:

> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
>
> Comment 2
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Owner: RI
>
> Location in reviewed document:
> 6.7.1
>
> Comment:
> We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.
>
>
> We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis is expected to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way for RFC 3066ter).
>
>
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

r12a

Personal comment:

This markup MUST use values that conform to [RFC 4646]. " should say *... or
its successor* !  So I think we've addressed only half of the comment.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:43
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
> [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>
> Hello i18n core,
>
> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for our
> discussion .
>
> Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement
> it like the reference at
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#l
> anginfo-implementation
> .
>
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we
> don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Felix
> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Comment from the i18n review of:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
> >
> > Comment 2
> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> > Editorial/substantive: S
> > Owner: RI
> >
> > Location in reviewed document:
> > 6.7.1
> >
> > Comment:
> > We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.
> >
> >
> > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since
> RFC3066bis is expected to become obsolete soon after it is
> released (to make way for RFC 3066ter).
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Addison Phillips-2

Yes, please.

Although the changes in 4646bis should only affect the contents of the
registry, referencing the up-to-date RFC (when published) will help
users who need to use extended language subtags (for example, to
distinguish Chinese spoken dialects).

Note that a reference to BCP 47 does this automagically.

Addison

Richard Ishida wrote:

> Personal comment:
>
> This markup MUST use values that conform to [RFC 4646]. " should say *... or
> its successor* !  So I think we've addressed only half of the comment.
>
> RI
>
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:43
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
>> [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>>
>> Hello i18n core,
>>
>> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for our
>> discussion .
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement
>> it like the reference at
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#l
>> anginfo-implementation
>> .
>>
>> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we
>> don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Felix
>> [hidden email] wrote:
>>> Comment from the i18n review of:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
>>>
>>> Comment 2
>>> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
>>> Editorial/substantive: S
>>> Owner: RI
>>>
>>> Location in reviewed document:
>>> 6.7.1
>>>
>>> Comment:
>>> We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.
>>>
>>>
>>> We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
>> successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since
>> RFC3066bis is expected to become obsolete soon after it is
>> released (to make way for RFC 3066ter).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis

Yves Savourel-2
In reply to this post by r12a

Hi Richard, all,

The text "or its succesor" has been added. See:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#langinfo-definition



Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear  from you, we will assume this issue as closed.

Thanks,
-yves




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 11:54 AM
To: 'Felix Sasaki'
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis


Personal comment:

This markup MUST use values that conform to [RFC 4646]. " should say *... or its successor* !  So I think we've addressed only half
of the comment.

RI


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:43
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email];
> [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] RFC 3066bis
>
> Hello i18n core,
>
> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3457 for our discussion
> .
>
> Thank you very much for your comment. We agreed to implement it like
> the reference at
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#l
> anginfo-implementation
> .
>
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't
> hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Felix
> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Comment from the i18n review of:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
> >
> > Comment 2
> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> > Editorial/substantive: S
> > Owner: RI
> >
> > Location in reviewed document:
> > 6.7.1
> >
> > Comment:
> > We recommend that you say, BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066bis.
> >
> >
> > We also strongly recommend that you add the phrase "or its
> successor" after reference to RFC 3066bis or BCP 47, since RFC3066bis
> is expected to become obsolete soon after it is released (to make way
> for RFC 3066ter).
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>