Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 19 July 2009 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB733A6C64 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.868, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9iFAoxnbKANf for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8474228C10F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2009 13:13:22 -0000
Received: from p508FBDCF.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.189.207] by mail.gmx.net (mp024) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2009 15:13:22 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/G2CFe+aHGrMzW5RtJ5r8xy/uQsy1cgBjqth58ci 2lDUv5gNIHOB9k
Message-ID: <4A631BE9.90605@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:13:13 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <48049274.3090501@gmx.de> <4A61B8B7.7030200@gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.54
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:16:29 -0000

Phillips, Addison wrote:
> Hello Julian,
> 
> I'm glad to see this note. My thoughts follow:
> 
>> 1) The exact wording of the "summary",
> 
> I think your wording is generally good. There are a couple of minor points to make.
> 
>> HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and Content-Language fields.
> 
> Not quite. It uses language tags in Content-Language. Accept-Language uses language *ranges*, which are currently defined by RFC 4647, although I would tend not to change this text here to note that fact. Section 5.4 can cover that.
> 
>> 2) whether we're referring the right ABNF production (does it need
>> to be "obs-language-tag" instead, or both), and
> 
> I don't think it should be both. That would be confusing and lead to interoperability issues. 
> 
> I think that, ideally, you would use the new production rather than obs-language-tag. While obs-language-tag is more permissive, language tags that match it (but not language-tag) have never been valid. And many of the most common invalid values happen to match both productions.
> 
>> 3) the examples
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the set of examples you have, although "x-pig-latin" is suspect :-) and the list is somewhat eclectic. The list in RFC 2616 was:
> 
>   en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin
> 
> This list had the advantage of being somewhat obvious to English speakers without additional annotation. (Note that the Cherokee tag was never actually valid!!) Perhaps some values from 4646bis Appendix B would be suitable. I suggest a carefully constructed list, such as:
> 
> ====
>    Example tags include:
> 
>    en (English)
>    en-US (English, United States)
>    en-US-x-pig-latin (English, United States, private use subtags)
>    hy-Latn-IT-arevela (Armenian, Latin script, Italy, eastern variant)
>    es-419 (Spanish, Latin America)
> ====
> ...

OK, I have updated the text as proposed (with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/613>), but will 
leave the issue (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/13>) 
open for more review, and potentially fine-tuning the examples.

BR, Julian