Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language Tags

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 14 May 2014 07:18 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411611A0273 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jpxdM-BtmD5m for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x233.google.com (mail-oa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2651A0040 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id n16so1715919oag.10 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=f8lybHLosC1/5aJ403fS6HPz7Z7vuWzR09hGX55zJPc=; b=WTzgpfsOobXT2k7ejfRgUNx1CD5Ly7xd9V8w5VP/lafE9rOO3CsFgzcMRZt39KeVds KhcrNKeO9ScN6ZimyZxuBWtmUW4mnTFdtmtDk0Z9zMaqDJGTcLrHXForC6TtSr2f5/CI psKCJX1pjQVGobrGJ0C7QLcfSnkCvVztMaRKI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=f8lybHLosC1/5aJ403fS6HPz7Z7vuWzR09hGX55zJPc=; b=EjCd5GA+heEN7RnLXUweIgQiV7B0QAYxsIla4Q2wJ5ziIt+y0WYg+cHai941ojaZ+o 5MKjtoPnGBlLKyHtO3QTWE24/ppoPnjmC5E0Kd0h9rFMDxDIM8z6NCDM1KQpKBHO9qo/ iMMxklqbtOd9X0jSEh+zkMvcnbMA+Y01oCJbefSSKeIV27RLZfkpyKex5mWAMux/ORjJ nJFJ/UBYgNmqW+5jyC9hltFHtSLaQlk+KKaMtbmHphfJLhh7ogb3d4M7+CZx8OJfLiAz q1ocQSsh+IVVidb+rtYb13pnOexLVCGSbFZCq7dRTP4h0eQXL7FHanbLPT88UpL4xiv7 wd3A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnTWvNYHfRHzmI3Hpc7JLcFHBMO7mpkMRBB3HAPGAEyicMDNqmhwZgM4AnvrmJ9wkAUp5KQ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.104.101 with SMTP id gd5mr1711347obb.54.1400051897334; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.60.100 with HTTP; Wed, 14 May 2014 00:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9BE5D3F7FAEE4CAB8FD3326ED8F1ED75@PeterPC>
References: <18971982.1399873468367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <9BE5D3F7FAEE4CAB8FD3326ED8F1ED75@PeterPC>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:18:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzyFAyLciHD0gzGM_5eaEqXdUFbyK8cJ_gVsQjmc+0fWEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115ec140210e904f956fc5c
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/-8_DhSngBwX77vctNhGfx1Eac9w
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:42:08 -0700
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language Tags
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 07:18:25 -0000

On 14 May 2014 04:33, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not aware of any use case where having multiple language tags for the
> same plain-text string is useful.  For instance, RDF supports only one
> language tag for each string.  And HTML5 doesn't support multiple languages
> in the Content-Language header field or META tag; instead, for multilingual
> documents, it relies on markup to set the language used for each section.
> But plain-text strings don't admit of HTML-like markup without more.
>
> Moreover, having multiple language tags for plain text leads to the
> additional problem of determining which parts of the text each language tag
> applies to, which is not so easy in the case of your three-language example.
>

Many years ago, Mark Crispin and Chris Newman had a proposal for embedding
language tags in invalid UTF-8; I seem to recall they publicly renounced
their proposal rather dramatically in favour of a Unicode Consortium
proposal for embedding the language tags somewhere in Plane 14 - published
as RFC 2482.

The fact it was all initiated in order to support the pressing needs of
ACAP might give you some hints as to why it never really took off, but as a
counter-proposal to language tags in metadata, it might be worth
re-examining.

Dave.