search

w3c / i18n-actions

Action item tracker for the i18n WG.
1 stars 0 forks source link

fix the rfc3066bis page #92

Closed ghurlbot closed 2 months ago

ghurlbot commented 2 months ago

Opened by @aphillips via IRC channel #i18n on irc.w3.org

Due: 2024-04-25 (Thursday 25 April)

xfq commented 2 months ago

https://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/rfc3066bis.html

klensin commented 2 months ago

Apologies for missing the call, but, although I would have organized that page differently, I'm having trouble figuring out what the problem is that needs fixing. If I did know, I could probably help. In particular: (1) The current registry is, as indicated, at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry (or https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry, but it redirects. Now, that registry is specified by/ attributed to RFC 5646, not 4646, which it obsoleted That (new) registry listing also violates IANA norms, norms that 5646 does not, AFAICT, even try to override. Compare the information available it its now-obsolete cousin https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags/language-tags.xhtml#language-tags-1 (2) RFC 4646 should not be referenced at all now, except, perhaps, as an historical note (3) Because of the introduction of RFC 5646, BCP 47 now consists of RFC 4647 and 5646. I have no idea what the note at the bottom, which seems to imply a future action, is supposed to mean except that the "actually points to RFC 4646" is false. The link at the bottom, ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/bcp/bcp47.txt, probably still works except several "modern" browsers have decided to improve in the idea of a fully accessible Internet by dropping support for FTP and assuming that the same locations should be able to be accessed via HTTP and/or HTTPS. That assumption, at least in my experience, rarely works if only because the targets are usually not HTML or equivalent pages designed for web use. A better reference today would be https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp47

So, what is the problem that needs fixing other than that it may not be a good idea for W3C documents to try to explain IETF documents, registries, and terminology? Does the above supply sufficient information to fix whatever the problem is? Should I start a complaint about the format that is displayed at https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry and, if not, why not?

We having fun yet?

klensin commented 2 months ago

Sorry forgot one: The IETF LTRU WG was shut down at the end of November 2009 and hence cannot be responsible for anything at all.

With the understanding that I do not know what motivated this issue/task, a tentative recommendation: don't try to fix this page. Get rid of it and replace it with something that points directly to the BCP 47 definition (see above) and the registry, pointing to RFC 5646 if needed.

aphillips commented 2 months ago

@klensin This page is super-duper old (probably pre-dating 4646, hence the name) and what we discussed yesterday was permanently redirecting it to our article about BCP47, the LTLI spec, or to BCP47 itself--not trying to update the text in any way.

klensin commented 2 months ago

Addison,

Any of those options would be perfectly reasonable. thanks, john

--On Friday, April 19, 2024 14:14 -0700 Addison Phillips @.***> wrote:

@klensin This page is super-duper old (probably pre-dating 4646, hence the name) and what we discussed yesterday was permanently redirecting it to our article about BCP47, the LTLI spec, or to BCP47 itself--not trying to update the text in any way.

ghurlbot commented 2 months ago

Closed by @aphillips via IRC channel #i18n on irc.w3.org