A few replies below. Norbert
On Apr 17, 2012, at 12:20 , Phillips, Addison wrote: > A few comments follow. > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Globalization Architect (Lab126) > Chair (W3C I18N WG) > > Internationalization is not a feature. > It is an architecture. > > > > On Mar 26, 2012 4:59 PM, "Norbert Lindenberg" > <[email protected]> wrote: > While everybody is reviewing the draft specification of the ECMAScript > Internationalization API [1] in preparation for this week's TC 39 meeting, > here are a few issues that have come up, with proposed resolutions: > > > Issue 1, IsWellFormedLanguageTag (6.2.2), raised by Allen: > > The specification referenced here, RFC 5646 section 2.1, says nothing about > the case of duplicate extension subtags (example: the duplicate -u- in > "de-u-nu-latn-u-ca-gregory"), although RFC 5646 section 2.2.9 and section 3.7 > say tat duplicate extension subtags are invalid. The ResolveLocale abstract > operation (Globalization API, 9.2.1) will only consider the first extension > subtag sequence it sees, and ignore others, without giving applications any > hint as to what's going on. > > AP> Probably a reasonable way to handle that. I assume that you actually > mean, btw, “ResolveLocale … will only consider the first extension subtag > sequence it recognizes”. E.g. it would ignore the newly-added “-t-“ extension > and find the “-u-“ in a tag like “en-us-t-something-u-ca-gregori” Yes. Fortunately, this glitch only occurs in our discussion - the spec clearly refers to "Unicode Locale Extension Sequences", which are specified with the singleton "u". > Should IsWellFormedLanguageTag be enhanced to check for duplicate extension > subtags? And then probably also duplicate variant subtags? > > AP> Strictly speaking, according to BCP 47, the term “well-formed” > encompasses *only* the check against the ABNF, which does not include these > checks. I changed the spec to use the term "structurally valid", which you use below. > The one thing I'm sure we don't want is validation against the IANA Language > Subtag Registry. > > AP> That’s “valid”, not “well-formed” in BCP 47 parlance. I agree with this. > > > My proposed resolution: Add checking for duplicate extension subtags and > duplicate variant subtags, and throw exception if they exist. > > AP> … and actually I agree with this. Structural validity checking seems like > a reasonable and useful addition. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
