Mark Davis wrote:
There are a few other items that seem to not be in http://inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17.html yet, I think because we may not have had specific language. I think we were in agreement that we need to drop the Deprecated from the Extlang cases, and tie the Preferred Value closer to canonicalization.
OK, another item for 4645bis.
... However, for backwards compatibility the deprecated code may be preferred in many contexts. For example, both "iw" and "he" can be used in the Java programming language, but "he" is converted on input to "iw", which is thus the canonical form in Java.
I'm not wild about calling a lot of attention to cases like this. The message it sends is that after reading this 88-page document full of MUSTard, you're free to define your own canonicalization rules however you please.
Java was first released in 1995, the same year that RFC 1766 appeared and brought additional attention to the use of ISO 639 language codes on the Internet. Most people who used language tags referred to informal ISO 639 code lists, which were often badly out of date and may have included the code element 'iw' which had been withdrawn from ISO 639 in 1989. Certainly nobody would have used the term "canonical form" in relation to language tags back then. Java is not an exemplary case of how to make RFC 4646bis fit your needs.
ADD: However, for backwards compatibility the deprecated code may be preferred in many contexts: see 3.1.7. Preferred-Value Field.For example, use 'he' for Hebrew in preference to 'iw'.
I seriously question "many." -- Doug Ewell * Thornton, 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 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.