At 17:04 12/09/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dear Peter,
> whatever the way you want to say it, these libraries have now to meet
> new specs they had not to meet before.
I cannot say whether every existing software library written to conform
to RFC 3066 *has to* meet new specs. Certainly there will some, perhaps
many, that would be benefit from revision to the new specs.
Dear Peter,
The target is end to end interoperability between users/processes of
non-English language. Users of every library MUST know to which
extent the library they use fits the job or not, which alternative
they can use. They should have a verification procedure to check
their libraries depending on what they want. They should know how
their software behaves when analysing specific langtag.
For example, _some_ documentation is given by
http://library.n0i.net/programming/perl/ac_tive/lib/I18N/LangTags/List.html.
It is not strictly complying with any of the RFCs, nor giving the
source code. That kind of information is a minimum.
If that was your intent, it would have been clearer to me had you asked
people to identify libraries they feel should be revised if the new spec
is adopted.
You think some should escape the check? I do not know. I was
expecting from you, from the authors, from the members of the
WG-ltru, the list of all the libraries you know (URLs). You say they
cannot support the users needs I presented, neither my big initial
request to support to additional subtags (referent and context) nor
even to support RFC documented URI-tags (a hook of a dedicated library?)
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
