This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Target: sec. 3.4.3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/#language Proposal: 1) change first reference from "RFC 3066 or its successor" to "BCP 47, currently represented by RFC 4646 and RFC 4647". Use the following URIs: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt 2) Change the subsequent mentioning of RFC 3066 to BCP 47. Note: The BNF defined in RFC 4646 is more constrainted than what is available at http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema11-2-20060217/#language . I don't propose to change this BNF.
The XML Schema Working Group discussed this issue at its teleconference of 14 December 2007. The current reference to RFC 3066 is non-normative: the xsd:language datatype is intended to hold language codes as defined by RFC 3066 or its successor(s), but type validity is defined solely by a simple regular expression, and a note points out that for the full checking of language codes, additional work is required beyond checking for type validity. We did not choose to change that basic pattern; implicitly, the WG agreed with the proposal implicit in the description, to leave the grammar of the xsd:language type alone. We did agree to refer to BCP 47 instead of RFC 3066 as appropriate; the editors were so instructed, and I thank you for the details you provide about what we should be referring to. In view of the purpose of BCP 47 and other documents in the BCP series, it may seem unnecessary to retain the words "or its successor(s)", but I expect we'll keep them just in case. (But we'll delete the reference to the standards track.) Felix, as originator of the issue, please indicate your acceptance of this disposition by changing the status of the bug to RESOLVED. Or, if for some reason you are dissatisfied, please let us know why and how we can satisfy your concerns. If the WG doesn't hear from you in a month, we'll assume you're happy.
Hello Michael, thank you and the XML Schema Working Group for looking into this issue. The i18n Core Working Group discussed your response on our call yesterday, see http://www.w3.org/2008/01/16-core-minutes#item08 In general, we agree with your resolution. We have two comments left, see below. First, we think you do not need to say "successor" for the reference to BCP 47. BCP 47 always refers to the latest RFC used for language identification and matching. The term "successor" would only be needed for a reference to such an RFC, e.g. "RFC 4646 or its successor". Second, for the ABNF, we agree that you don't need to refer to the ABNF defined in RFC 4646. However, it would be great if you could add a reference to the notion of "well-formed language tags", saying (even non-normatively) that checking of well-formedness of language tags is what an XML Schema processor might consider. The principle of well-formedness for language tags leads directly to the ABNF, see section 2.2.9. "Classes of Conformance" of RFC 4646 for the necessary definition. In this way, you would promote the right behavior, even if you do not update the regular expression for the language data type. Thank you, Felix
The changes agreed on by the WG on 14 December were integrated into the status-quo document in December 2007. Accordingly, I'm marking this issue as resolved. With regard to i18n's two points in comment #2: With the current plans for IETF documents, it does look unlikely that the phrase 'or its successors' will ever be needed. The whole point of a document series like BCP is that the documents won't go out of date and thus won't need successors. Speaking for myself, I think one reason to retain the words is that current plans sometimes change. If the BCP series is replaced by a new series, or if the IETF decides to change the way the world is carved up by BCP documents, then BCP 47 might conceivably have a successor. If that day ever comes, I'd just as soon not have to change the XSD spec for it. On the notion of 'well-formed language tags'; I will look into this and make a (separate) editorial wording proposal on the subject. (Separate, in the sense that I don't propose to use this issue to track that proposal; I want to close this issue.) Felix, and i18n WG colleagues, you can inspect the state of the current spec on this issue at any of the following URIs, which present the status quo text of Datatypes in fair copy and with various diffs: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.html http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.diff-1.0.html http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.diff-wd.html If you agree with the Schema WG's disposition of the issue, please indicate so by changing the status of this bug report to CLOSED. If you disagree, please REOPEN it and let us know why. If we don't hear from you by the end of February, we'll assume you are happy.
Hello Michael, we discussed this at today's i18n core call, see http://www.w3.org/2008/01/30-core-irc#T20-31-36 we are fine with the "BCP 47 or its successor" formulation. For the note about 'well-formed language tags', we would like to wait with closing this issue before we have agreement on the text of the note. Would that be fine with you, or would you prefer tracking the 'well-formed language tags' note as a separate issue? Regards, Felix.