On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:08:53PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> From: Tom Harrison <t...@apnic.net>
>> The motivation for including "except in jCard objects" originally
>> was to make it clear that an implementor couldn't include the lang
>> attribute as defined in this section in a jCard object. To
>> preserve that aspect while making it clear that the
>> language-related content defined in jCard may be used, I think the
>> following would work better:
>>
>> The "lang" attribute as defined in this section may appear
>> anywhere in an object class or data structure, except for in
>> jCard objects. To avoid any doubt, language-related tags and
>> parameters defined by jCard itself may be used in jCard
>> objects.
>>
>> though the wording is a little awkward.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Tom. How about this instead?
>
> "The "lang" attribute as defined in this section may appear anywhere
> in an object class or data structure, except for in jCard objects.
> The "Language Tag" value described in RFC 7095 [RFC7095] MAY be used
> in jCard objects."
I think this is fine, but the MAY could be interpreted in isolation as
implying that the document contains some more general prohibition on
the use of all of jCard's functionality, which might lead to
confusion. It's hardly a big problem, but another suggestion:
The "lang" attribute as defined in this section may appear
anywhere in an object class or data structure, except for in jCard
objects. jCard supports similar functionality by way of the
LANGUAGE property parameter: see Section 5.1 of [RFC6350].
Simply striking the second sentence is another option, too (so that
the only change from RFC 7483 is the addition of "as defined in this
section"). But in any event, I think your suggested text is fine.
-Tom
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
