[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray wrote:
> Having isolated what you argue is a shortcoming in the spec, it would be
> good form to advance a suggestion as to how it should be corrected.
> Probably just make it clear that conformance to the RFC is required. -Tim
Having strained at similar gnats myself, I can say there's a precedent of
clarifications like this, made on a discussion list by the spec's editors,
sufficing in lieu of published errata.
2 years ago, I nitpicked on the ietf-languages list that RFC 1766 ("language
tags") references only ISO 639:1988 ("country codes"), and therefore only the
country codes in the 1988 version of ISO 639 could be considered valid, Harald
Alvestrand stated that the intent was to reference ISO 639:1988 and its
successors, not just that one version. He considered it a minor / overly
pedantic enough nit that it didn't require an update to the existing RFC, but
IIRC he said that an effort would be made to avoid repeat the mistake in any
successors to the RFC. And then someone pointed out that no one validates
xml:lang values beyond being CDATA anyway, so what did I care. :)
- Mike
____________________________________________________________________________
mike j. brown | xml/xslt: http://skew.org/xml/
denver/boulder, colorado, usa | resume: http://skew.org/~mike/resume/
|
