[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: run.language discrepancy between spec and schema
Larry and I are (rather desperately) trying to button down the eballot doc. We’ve found a difference between the spec and the schema that neither of us can recall sufficient detail on to resolve. Anyone else remember anything? Absent inputs,
we’re favoring the use of ISO 639-1 and ISO 3166-1 for the reason that this data appears sufficient for string mgmt. and it is a non-breaking change to expand to RFC5646 (but a breaking change to move in the other direction). Michael The spec mandates RFC5646 to populate
Larry and I can't locate any history that helps us figure out how this discrepancy materialized. The RFC5646 requirement is long-standing (in fact, dates back to SARIF v1). The most
likely scenarios are that we either changed the requirement and failed to update the spec. Or that we updated the schema speculatively in the SDK and someone made a successful case against the change in TC discussion.
Does anyone recall the history on this?
@kupsch? |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]