Peter Constable wrote:
If XML Schema 1.1 is still a work in progress, and assuming 4646bis wraps up quickly (which I hope will be the case), why would it not be possible (and, indeed, why would it not be welcomed) to suggest that XML Schema 1.1 use ABNF from 4646bis that differs from 4646 by removing a never-to-be-used construct and hence is simpler?
As I said before, the I18N core Working Group within W3C proposed to the XML Schema Working Group to refer to the ABNF from RFC 4646. I had a call with someone from the XML Schema working group this morning, and it seems they are various opinions in the XML Schema Working Group about how to refer to language tag specs:
1) refer to a specific spec, e.g. RFC 3066 (this is what is currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#language , i.e. a reference to RFC 3066)
2) make no type constraint, just refer to the (ISO) language codes3) say that a validator needs to check current version of language code spec if it wants to do the right thing (where "needs" doesn't have any normative power), and providing the necessary reference for that.
The current tendency within the XML Schema Working Group is that they might go for 3) and replace the reference to 3066 with a reference to BCP 47. However, the pattern for validation of the language data type will probably not be changed, it will stay as RFC 3066 like
[a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*
So for this thread I think this mainly means good news (an "old"
reference to the RFC 4646 ABNF in XML Schema is not a problem anymore,
since they will not have it anyway ) and some bad news (there will be
the old RFC 3066 ABNF also in XML Schema 1.1). I think the later news
should not prevent people from in LTRU moving forward.
Felix| | _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.