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

Randy Presuhn <> Mon, 12 May 2014 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 885741A03F6 for <>; Sun, 11 May 2014 22:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0N5roGN9jFBv for <>; Sun, 11 May 2014 22:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600311A03F5 for <>; Sun, 11 May 2014 22:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=ATb2xStd8ron1tJeD5+xnr3nq+MysSE9tiy3WH2G6ccGfXsP5fwfBTRric/dXkUV; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1Wjj2K-0001Sl-Gd; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:44:28 -0400
Received: from by with HTTP; Mon, 12 May 2014 01:44:28 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:44:28 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: Randy Presuhn <>
To: Ira McDonald <>, LTRU Working Group <>, Carsten Bormann <>, Peter Occil <>, Ira McDonald <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88891b749bef7332bbc2a34d5b374703617155d6e00d349f813350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:30:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Randy Presuhn <>
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 05:44:37 -0000

Hi -

Is representation of multi-lingual strings a concern?

E.g.  "She said 'Bonjour', and then 'Ciao'."


>From: Ira McDonald <>
>Sent: May 11, 2014 4:50 PM
>To: LTRU Working Group <>rg>, Carsten Bormann <>rg>, Peter Occil <>om>, Ira McDonald <>
>Subject: [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646	Language Tags
><oops - retrying with the correct LTRU WG address this time, I hope...>
>Forwarding this note to the LTRU list for language tag experts to review.
>Please copy your reply to IETF Apps Discuss list (see below).
>- Ira McDonald
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Carsten Bormann <>
>Date: Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:48 PM
>Subject: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags
>To: IETF Apps Discuss <>
>Cc: Peter Occil <>
>If you care about language tags, I hope the subject got your
>attention.  If you don't, please ignore this request for assistance.
>Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a binary
>format for structured objects.  CBOR has a number of pre-defined data
>types and allows additional data types to be registered as "tags".
>Among the pre-defined data types is a text string (Unicode characters,
>encoded in UTF-8).  No facility is pre-defined for associating a
>Language Tag with such a string.
>A new CBOR tag is being proposed for combining a CBOR text string with
>a Language Tag.  The (single-page) proposal is in:
>The proposal is almost trivially obvious (pair a language tag with an
>UTF-8 string in a two-element array) and looks right to me.  But I'm
>not an expert in Language Tags, and silly mistakes are being made by
>non-experts all the time.
>If you are an expert in Language Tags:
>-- Is anything missing or could anything be done in a better way?
>-- Or does this really simply look right?
>Responses to me privately or to the list are appreciated.
>Grüße, Carsten
>apps-discuss mailing list