I'm not going to respond to most of Jefsey's comments. However, wearing my W3C hat for a moment.... Jefsey wrote: - "RFC 3066bis" wants to fix some of the W3C needs, in a way which would make these patches Internet standards. This is not the appropriate way. (There is a W3C document on its way, why two?) -- Let me be abundantly clear. "RFC 3066bis" (that is, draft-phillips-langtags) is not intended to solve or solely to solve needs described formally or informally by the W3C Internationalization WG nor, as far as I am aware, any other part of the W3C. Participants in the W3C I18N WG (such as, obviously, myself) and other W3C working groups have contributed to the development and review of the draft, but they have done so as individuals or as representatives of their organizations or employers. This document emphatically is not a product of the W3C, however. It is an individual submission to the IETF supported by many of the subscribers in the IETF-languages list (where it was developed) and by these various organizations. There is not yet a W3C document on its way related to language tags. In the draft charter renewing the Internationalization Working Group, which I hope is approved shortly, there is some discussion of guidelines for implementation of RFC 3066 and (I hope) its successor. There is also a specific work item to define locale identifiers for the World-Wide Web in general and Web services in particular. None of this work is in the current charter. It is my hope that this new charter will be approved to start soon. Locale identifiers are emphatically not the same thing as language tags. The use of RFC 3066 in W3C specifications has always been very clearly as language identifiers and never (to date) as a locale identifier. Although there is a relationship between the two applications and although RFC 3066 language tags have been used as a kind of de facto locale identifier in the past (especially by some Web applications with regard to the Accept-Language/Content-Language headers for HTTP), this should not suggest that some W3C specification is in the offing that overrides or supersedes RFC 3066 or its successor. Nor will the W3C I18N Core WG be chartered, AFAIK, to replace RFC 3066 (or its successor). To the extent that W3C specifications are important consumers of language tags, there is interest at W3C and I'm sure the W3C's official liasons will make the W3C's position (assuming that it has one) known at an appropriate time. Best Regards, Addison Addison P. Phillips Director, Globalization Architecture http://www.webMethods.com Chair, W3C Internationalization Working Group http://www.w3.org/International Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf