> 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? Clearly not. But x-sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu is already absolutely conformant with the current RFC 3066. And the current RFC 3066 clearly permits the registration of something as long as sr-CS-891-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu-boont-gaulish-guoyu (although of course this particular combination would certainly never get in). Inutile d'aller plu loin... There is no use to trying to declare a difference in conformant lengths between these two documents when one doesn't exist. If you want to do something productive, you should make a practical suggestion for a change in the current text of the new draft. If the new draft is to backward compatible, then it has to be worded carefully. I haven't thought it through at length, but would need to be something like: - A conformant implementation need not support the storage of language tags which exceed a specified length. However, such a limitation must be clearly documented, including the disposition of any longer tags (for example, whether an error value is generated or the language tag is truncated -- and if so, how it is to be truncated). âMark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Lilly" <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:20 Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP > > 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-languages mailing list > Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf