Search RFCs

RFC Editor

Found 2 records.

Status:Reported (1)

RFC 4647, "Matching of Language Tags", September 2006

Errata ID:8287
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Randall Edward Cotton
Date Reported: 2025-02-08

Section 3.1 says:

   3.  Lookup (Section 3.4) matches a language priority list consisting       of basic language ranges to sets of language tags to find the one       exact language tag that best matches the range.

It should say:

   3.  Lookup (Section 3.4) matches a language priority list consisting       of basic and/or extended language ranges to sets of language tags       to find the one exact language tag that best matches the range.

Notes:

The original text illustrated above states that the 'lookup' matching scheme operates using 'basic language ranges' as opposed to 'extended language ranges'. However, the description of the 'lookup' matching scheme in section 3.4, in its last two paragraphs (beginning with "In some cases,"), describes how extended language ranges are processed by the 'lookup' matching scheme. Thus, section 3.1 indicates that 'extended language ranges' are not supported by the 'lookup' matching scheme, while section 3.4 indicates the opposite and describes how they are to be supported.

This contradiction can lead to confusion for the reader and compliance ambiguity for the implementor.

Status:Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 4647, "Matching of Language Tags", September 2006

Errata ID:8253
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jia Hongchao
Date Reported: 2025-01-17
Held for Document Update by: RFC Editor
Date Held: 2025-01-22

Section 2 and 2.3 says:

   For example,   HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] describes one such mechanism in its discussion of   the Accept-Language header (Section 14.4), which is used when   selecting content from servers based on the language of that content....   One well-known example of such a list is the   "Accept-Language" header defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616] (see Section   14.4) and RFC 3282 [RFC3282].

It should say:

n/a

Notes:

In the HTML version, the hyperlinks for "Section 14.4” in the sentences above should go to Section 14.4 of RFC 2616.

Current:
<a href="#section-14.4”>

Should be:
<a href="/doc/html/rfc2616#section-14.4">

--VERIFIER NOTES--
This is regarding the links generated in the rfc2html output, not the RFC itself (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt).

Report New Errata