That means essentially the same thing. Check to make sure your other reviewers
feel that wording is OK.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
-----Original Message-----
From: "Randall Gellens" <randy(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Sent: 2/23/2013 20:34
To: "Doug Ewell" <doug(_at_)ewellic(_dot_)org>; "Randall Gellens"
<randy(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>; "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "rg+ietf(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com"
<rg+ietf(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: "ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org" <ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org>
Subject: RE: draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01
Hi Doug,
At 8:20 AM -0700 2/23/13, Doug Ewell wrote:
You might want to reference BCP 47 instead of RFC 5646, but this is up to you.
When I reference RFC 5646, the actual reference includes it as both RFC and BCP.
I would actually suggest leaving off the reference to the Registry and just say
the tag must conform to 5646 (or BCP 47). That will imply the use of the
Registry.
How about: "The 'humintlang' attribute value MUST be a language tag per RFC
5646"?
From: Randall Gellens
Sent: 2/23/2013 1:18
To: Doug Ewell; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; rg+ietf(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-languages(_at_)iana(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01
Hi Doug,
Thanks very much. So, if I understand, your suggestions would be:
(1) Change the text for the possible new 'humintlang' attribute from:
The "humintlang" attribute value must be a single RFC 3066
[RFC3066] language tag in US-ASCII [RFC3066]. It is not dependent
on the charset attribute.
To:
The "humintlang" attribute value must be a single RFC 5646
[RFC5646] language tag from the IANA registry [IANA-lang-
tags]. It is not dependent on the charset attribute.
(2) Add RFC 5646 to the Normative References
Since the IANA registry referenced now was actually created by RFC 5646 not RFC
3066, this is both better technically (for the reasons you mention) and more
correct.
Let me know if I've understood, and if so, I may be able to get an update in
before the cut-off.
At 9:09 AM -0700 2/22/13, Doug Ewell wrote:
Draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01, "Negotiating Human Language Using
SDP", says this about the source of values for the SDP 'lang' attribute: > The
"lang" attribute value must be a single [RFC3066] language tag > in US-ASCII
[RFC3066]. Although this wording is quoted from RFC 4566, the subsequent
section proposing a new 'humintlang' attribute uses the same wording. Any new
format or protocol that employs language tags should apply BCP 47 (RFC 5646),
not RFC 3066, which was obsoleted in 2006. BCP 47 allows the use of more than
7300 additional language subtags derived from ISO 639-3, as well as script
subtags based on ISO 15924 and variant subtags, none of which are permitted in
a generative manner by RFC 3066. The draft says, "The attribute value should be
a language tag from the IANA registry [IANA-lang-tags]", referencing
www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, but RFC 3066 does not use
this registry; it references the core ISO standards directly, which reduces
stability, and it uses its own IANA registry (also obsolete) only for a few
dozen predefined variant tags, many of which are deprecated in BCP 47. RFC
4647, also part of BCP 47, provides guidelines for matching language tags, and
may benefit the SDP negotiation process described in the draft. -- Doug Ewell |
Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell °©
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe.
--Albert Einstein
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Things are more like they used to be than they are new.