On citation of RFCs / BCPs

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

On citation of RFCs / BCPs

Felix Sasaki

Hi all,

As part of my review of EMMA, see
http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/emma-review.html
I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather than
RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:

RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of Languages).
What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice),
which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is
represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP
47, currently represented by RFC 3066"?

The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for "Tags
for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third number.
In the i18n core wg, we thought that to avoid the need to update specs
which just want to refer to "Tags for the Identification of Languages", we
should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
identification as its topic.

Although this originated in the rfc 3066(bis) discussion, I think it is a
general question of how to refer to RFCs / BCPs. This disussion started on  
the w3t-arch list, but Dan Connolly suggested to discuss this also on  
these lists here. Any comments / opinions?

Best,

Felix

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

Misha Wolf

That (ie via BCP 47) is how I plan to refer to the Language Tags RFC
in IPTC Specifications.

Note one slight gremlin: the title of the BCP will, presumably, vary
with the title of the referenced RFC.  For example, the latest ID
has the title "Tags for Identifying Languages"[1], while BCP 47
currently has the title "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
which is the title of RFC 3066.

## A question to the LTRU WG: Is the change of title intentional? ##

[1] http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-phillips-langtags/

Misha Wolf
News Standards Manager, Reuters, www.reuters.com
Vice-Chair, News Architecture Working Party, IPTC, www.iptc.org/dev


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: 31 October 2005 08:56
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: On citation of RFCs / BCPs


Hi all,

As part of my review of EMMA, see
http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/emma-review.html
I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather
than
RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:

RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of
Languages).
What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice),
which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is
represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP
47, currently represented by RFC 3066"?

The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for
"Tags
for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third
number.
In the i18n core wg, we thought that to avoid the need to update specs
which just want to refer to "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
we
should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
identification as its topic.

Although this originated in the rfc 3066(bis) discussion, I think it is
a
general question of how to refer to RFCs / BCPs. This disussion started
on  
the w3t-arch list, but Dan Connolly suggested to discuss this also on  
these lists here. Any comments / opinions?

Best,

Felix



-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On citation of RFCs / BCPs

JFC Morfin
In reply to this post by Felix Sasaki

At 09:55 31/10/2005, Felix Sasaki wrote:

>Hi all,
>As part of my review of EMMA, see
>http://www.w3.org/International/2005/10/emma-review.html
>I made a comment on references to BCPs (best common practice) rather than
>RFCs (Request for comments), see comment 2:
>
>RFC 1766 is obsoleted by 3066 (Tags for the Identification of Languages).
>What is essential here is the reference to a BCP (best common practice),
>which is for language identification BCP 47. Currenlty bcp 47 is
>represented by RFC 3066, so could you change the reference to "IETF BCP
>47, currently represented by RFC 3066"?

I support but would advise against "currently represented by ..." as
we may see a few numbering changes.

1. the WG-ltru discussed many times the intent of RFC 3066 ter,
quater,etc. The RFC 3066 bis refers to ISO 639-1 and 2. So, there
will be changes to support ISO 639-3, then ISO 639-6. May be for ISO
639-4 too if needed and date do not match.

2. I strongly oppose RFC 3066 bis: I know of various intents to
object it (architectural (internationalization) premises, heavy
commercial, political and legal load, RFC 3935 principle of
competence) and replace it. The use of the BCP 47 vehicle would be the best.

>The background here is that there are currenlty two rfc numbers for "Tags
>for the Identification of Languages" (1766, 3066). The draft of rfc
>3066bis which has now been approved by the IESG will have a third number.

It is in "IESG Evaluation :: AD follow-up, with appeal of an AD
proposed change after LC.

Due to the xx66 numbering of 1766, 3066, a "Route 66" thread
developed at the WG-ltru, calling for another xx66 number. As a
result the "internationalization" doctrine has been nicknamed "Route
666". BCP 47 is neutral.

>In the i18n core wg, we thought that to avoid the need to update specs
>which just want to refer to "Tags for the Identification of Languages", we
>should recommend them to cite BCP 47, which will 'always' have language
>identification as its topic.

RFC 3066 bis makes its ABNF exclusive. Other (existing and future)
Language Identification tags could have been easily aggregated in the
RFC 3066 bis (one of the authors signs as W3C, but made clear he does
not represent a W3C positions). I proposed the simple inclusion of an
RFC 4151 conformant userspace to that end: there is a private use
space for walled garden applications, but Harald Alvestrand
documented why it cannot support external standards (a lame example
documenting the use of this user tagging in RFC 3066 bis is under
removal attempt).
jfc