> Date: 2004-12-12 13:00 > From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@xxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > CC: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Your claim that the RFC 3066 ABNF itself has a restriction in length is also > clearly false. I will quote that again since you seem somehow not to have > seen it: I made no such claim; indeed it was I who pointed out that RFC 3066 *theoretically* permits an infinite- length tag. On that basis alone (even if you missed the fact that I am an implementor of RFC 3066 language tags) you can be sure that I am well aware of the RFC 3066 ABNF. > Both documents establish many further limitations on the contents of > language tags in the text of each document. Ignoring those stated > limitations will, in both documents, result in nonconformant language tags. Are you claiming that sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu is nonconformant per some specification in the draft proposal? It is certainly too long to be used in an RFC 2047/2231 encoded-word. It is much longer than any registered RFC 3066 language tag, and the draft proposes removing full tag registration procedure restrictions as well as decoupling use from registration that would combine to permit such an abomination. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf