Updated reference for language tags

[mnot@…]

RFC 1766, which is referenced by RFC 2616 section 3.10 as the source for its definition of language tags has a BNF has been updated by RFC3066 (a BCP).

RFC 3066 defines these as:

    Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )
    Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA
    Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)

HTTP/1.1 RFC 2616 defines these as:

    language-tag  = primary-tag *( "-" subtag )
    primary-tag   = 1*8ALPHA
    subtag        = 1*8ALPHA

In the meantime, RFC3066 has been obsoleted by RFC4646, and the original grammar production defining subtags seems to be gone:

     
Language-Tag  = langtag
/ privateuse             ; private use tag
/ grandfathered          ; grandfathered registrations

langtag       = (language
["-" script]
["-" region]
*("-" variant)
*("-" extension)
["-" privateuse])

language      = (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code
/ 4ALPHA                 ; reserved for future use
/ 5*8ALPHA               ; registered language subtag

extlang       = *3("-" 3ALPHA)         ; reserved for future use

script        = 4ALPHA                 ; ISO 15924 code

region        = 2ALPHA                 ; ISO 3166 code
/ 3DIGIT                 ; UN M.49 code

variant       = 5*8alphanum            ; registered variants
/ (DIGIT 3alphanum)

extension     = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum))

singleton     = %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT
; "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9"
; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use

privateuse    = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))

grandfathered = 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))
; grandfathered registration
; Note: i is the only singleton
; that starts a grandfathered tag

alphanum      = (ALPHA / DIGIT)       ; letters and numbers

So shouldn't RFC2616 (Section 3.10) stop defining these things, and just normatively refer to RFC4626 for the definition of "Language-Tag"?

[fielding@…]

postpone until ABNF update.

[julian.reschke@…]

I propose to go ahead with the change independantly of the ABNF migration; we already have applied other changes to the BNF; and, after all, everything is under source control for later checks.

[julian.reschke@…]

Proposed change.

[julian.reschke@…]

Proposed change.

[julian.reschke@…]

Proposal: delay until RFC4646bis is published (see ​http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-17)

[julian.reschke@…]

draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis is now in state Publication Requested (​https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis/)

[julian.reschke@…]

draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis has been approved and now is in the RFC Editor's publication queue: ​http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html#draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis

[julian.reschke@…]

Proposed patch updated so it can be applied to current draft

[julian.reschke@…]

Proposed patch updated to refer to RFC4646bis

[julian.reschke@…]

Fixed in [613]:

Resolve #13: refer to RFC4646bis for language tag definition (closes #13)

[julian.reschke@…]

From [690]:

draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-23 has been published as RFC5646 (see #13)