From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2008 - 00:34:12 CDT
David Starner <prosfilaes at gmail dot com> wrote:
> I'd note that all of RFC 3066 including the standards it references is
> actually quite a chunk of text, and I'd kick language tagging to a
> higher level protocol for that reason alone.
You'd be better off referencing RFC 4646, which has been "the new RFC
3066" for two and a half years now. It's a much larger chunk of text
than 3066, almost five times as long, and there is a companion volume
(RFC 4647) devoted to tag matching which is also longer than 3066.
The good news is that 4646 offers more flexibility and tagging options
than 3066, and employs a purpose-built Language Subtag Registry
maintained by IANA, so there is no need to chase down the code lists
from the various ISO standards. All language tagging mechanisms (even
the deprecated ones :-) should follow 4646 rather than 3066.
There is a successor to 4646 in the works (see second link in my
signature for more information) but it has been delayed for some time,
and will be largely compatible with 4646 in any case.
-- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2008 - 00:42:39 CDT