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

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com> Fri, 16 May 2014 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
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 2BF971A007E for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 qN3yVR5hzYKG for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x233.google.com (mail-qc0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C75AF1A0032 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x3so3325707qcv.24 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=4+Nd79hIYw40TUarXWvdOTvg9h6hFfEBLzOkHEE74Mc=; b=BnBXMWGQDNbIIhFng27jKKMuXZRUaxuxOhkd/UoHdeZjDUTpS4lIs3E58WbncrAxjV ej+jNLhrYnB8QE/K3RwJDCOsmtlTlgXJCrYGHGDvGQrSx4ygSUysSiJDMie8CDdqsqep 094PjfRIJLA9Y6rE1uO003fGWbmMA5iFqUpc6Ziubo5Mdv8o3Nza9UjeRT75w/MX2aeh 7XzOQZhAnHNSDng+jet9Bh8N27R2yTYEAfhwfwr7QRHmRP6Z3PdGffIdrkuDc/uMLLlz JSXQYd0Z0HhBzUKLbCh7lXFVHZmBWZ6iE4kQX9OFBZ1+LmSbfVljDHQZfsjmFa3RjnZW 3YgQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.49.76 with SMTP id p70mr20131996qga.86.1400209226161; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.151.81 with HTTP; Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <63CE3F1B0A474CD9B023A3D330BEED32@DougEwell>
References: <20140515083955.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.b69c089194.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <CAJ2xs_H60RHSoUWYb4b_pioM9qG+RzNrMiGqZm_R6QVotabHjg@mail.gmail.com> <63CE3F1B0A474CD9B023A3D330BEED32@DougEwell>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:00:05 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: US7v3tISTYPhoP4HlAmmQ03QIa0
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_G7+qG1M58-Oq9Mekihv5SBEvAhVbkDaEL6pWZ7vLD=ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11370a3489654004f97b9dfb
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/DaOfHujVRU8KVBrRfNZ6_pK-Iag
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language 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: Fri, 16 May 2014 03:00:35 -0000

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:

> And if Peter and Dave had decided that an out-of-band tagging model for
> CBOR was simply unworkable (which they did not, thankfully), and they were
> left with a choice between Plane 14 tags, invalid UTF-8 sequences, and some
> other homegrown, MLSF-like hack, what would be your recommendation to them?
>

​I would say that they need to go back and look at out-of-band tagging.

CBOR already handles a variety of data formats and can handle sequences of
variable length text and other items, so there is no need ​to say what's
the best of a set of other choices, all of which are awful.


Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis>

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*