I'm not going to respond to most of Jefsey's comments. However, wearing my W3C
hat for a moment....
Jefsey wrote:
- "RFC 3066bis" wants to fix some of the W3C needs, in a way which would
make these patches Internet standards. This is not the appropriate way.
(There is a W3C document on its way, why two?)
--
Let me be abundantly clear.
"RFC 3066bis" (that is, draft-phillips-langtags) is not intended to solve or
solely to solve needs described formally or informally by the W3C
Internationalization WG nor, as far as I am aware, any other part of the W3C.
Participants in the W3C I18N WG (such as, obviously, myself) and other W3C
working groups have contributed to the development and review of the draft,
but they have done so as individuals or as representatives of their
organizations or employers. This document emphatically is not a product of the
W3C, however. It is an individual submission to the IETF supported by many of
the subscribers in the IETF-languages list (where it was developed) and by
these various organizations.
There is not yet a W3C document on its way related to language tags. In the
draft charter renewing the Internationalization Working Group, which I hope is
approved shortly, there is some discussion of guidelines for implementation of
RFC 3066 and (I hope) its successor. There is also a specific work item to
define locale identifiers for the World-Wide Web in general and Web services in
particular. None of this work is in the current charter. It is my hope that
this new charter will be approved to start soon.
Locale identifiers are emphatically not the same thing as language tags. The
use of RFC 3066 in W3C specifications has always been very clearly as language
identifiers and never (to date) as a locale identifier. Although there is a
relationship between the two applications and although RFC 3066 language tags
have been used as a kind of de facto locale identifier in the past (especially
by some Web applications with regard to the Accept-Language/Content-Language
headers for HTTP), this should not suggest that some W3C specification is in
the offing that overrides or supersedes RFC 3066 or its successor. Nor will the
W3C I18N Core WG be chartered, AFAIK, to replace RFC 3066 (or its successor).
To the extent that W3C specifications are important consumers of language tags,
there is interest at W3C and I'm sure the W3C's official liasons will make the
W3C's position (assuming that it has one) known at an appropriate time.
Best Regards,
Addison
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com
Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf