Re: [Tools-discuss] BCP 47 not updated?

[Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com>]

For me, both http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt and http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 show the same contents, and both correctly include 5646 and 4647.

However, and they both *still* show the RFCs in the wrong order: 5646 is far and away the most important one, and is necessary for understanding 4647, but 4647 comes first in BCP 47. Despite requests, that still hasn't changed.

Mark

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 15:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

It's updated on the tools server at
http://[2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]/html/bcp47

Maybe you are seeing a cached copy?

I also see it updated on 208.66.40.242 and 64.170.98.42

The third A record is 194.146.105.14, and that one 404's
on http://194.146.105.14/html/bcp47, looks like a faulty redirect.

Regards
  Brian Carpenter

On 2009-10-31 08:12, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> The RFC Editor has it correctly, but the tools page (the link Martin sent, which is the text marked up with HTML links and such, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 ) is not updated.
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:00 PM
>> To: "Martin J. Dürst"
>> Cc: tools-discuss at ietf.org; Randy Presuhn; Mark Davis; Phillips,
>> Addison; Alexey Melnikov
>> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] BCP 47 not updated?
>>
>> On my screen today it contains 4647 followed by 5646, which is
>> correct and matches the RFC Editor site
>> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp47.txt)
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 2009-10-30 22:25, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 contains RFC 4646, when it
>> should be
>>> RFC 5646 (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646). I know it's a
>> very
>>> special case (one BCP consisting of two RFCs), but it would still
>> be
>>> very nice if it were updated.
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,    Martin. (LTRU co-chair)
>