sarif — archive

[Jim Kupsch]

I do not recall any discussion about this. I agree that using ISO 639-1 and ISO 3166-1 for the value is sufficient. Jim On 4/27/19 2:18 PM, Michael Fanning wrote: > 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 run.language . The schema > specifies that this property is constrained to a proper subset of > RFC5646, consisting of an ISO 639-1 country code and an optional ISO > 3166-1 region code. > > 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* > < https://github.com/kupsch >? > > https://github.com/oasis-tcs/sarif-spec/issues/402 >