Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review language-related guidanced in bp-i18n-specdev #16

Open
aphillips opened this issue Jul 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Review language-related guidanced in bp-i18n-specdev #16

aphillips opened this issue Jul 27, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@aphillips
Copy link
Contributor

Need to review the language-related guidance in specdev.

  • In some cases we need to copy guidelines into LTLI.
  • In some cases we need to resolve duplicates with LTLI.
  • In some cases we should revisit guidance.

Once LTLI is through it's wide review we'll need to do the reverse and put guidelines into specdev, so we should lay groundwork now.

@aphillips aphillips self-assigned this Jul 27, 2020
@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Jul 28, 2020

Agreed. Should we also review the locale-related guidance?

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Jul 28, 2020

Took a brief look at these two documents:


[From LTLI] Formulations such as "RFC 5646 or its successor" MAY be used, but only in cases where the specific document version is necessary.

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From LTLI] Specifications that need to preserve compatibility with obsolete versions of [BCP47] MUST reference the production obs-language-tag in [BCP47].

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From LTLI] Content validators SHOULD check if content uses valid language tags where feasible.

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From LTLI] Specifications SHOULD NOT reference [BCP47]'s underlying standards that contribute to the IANA Language Subtag Registry, such as ISO639, ISO15924, ISO3066, or UN M.49.

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From LTLI] Applications that provide language information as part of URIs (e.g. in the realm of RDF) SHOULD use [BCP47].

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From LTLI] Specifications SHOULD NOT restrict the length of language tags or permit or encourage the removal of extensions.

This guideline is not covered in specdev.


[From specdev] Refer to BCP 47, not to RFC 5646.

Should it mention RFC 1766 and RFC 3066, like LTLI?


In addition, the following guidance are in LTLI but not in specdev:

  • Unicode locale related guidelines
  • language tag matching related guidelines

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants