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

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Dave Cridland scripsit:

> Of course, an invalid-UTF-8 based proposal simply means that it's no
> longer UTF-8 per-se, and so needs itself to be tagged differently.

The whole point of the invalid-UTF-8 was that the less fussy decoders of
the day would quietly drop the hidden information and display the string.
That is much less likely to happen now.

> Exactly the same caveats apply to Plane 14 tagging, mind, 

Not so much.  Unicode renderers that don't understand language tags will
not display them (because stuff on plane E is never displayed per its
Unicode properties), or if the renderer doesn't even understand that,
will at worst generate boxes or other "character unknown" glyphs,
often only three of them.

> The main consideration, I think, is what happens when a CBOR processor
> encounters a language-tagged string when it doesn't understand the concept.

Agreed, and if that is a serious problem, Plane E starts to look better.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [e-mail]
[P]olice in many lands are now complaining that local arrestees are insisting
on having their Miranda rights read to them, just like perps in American TV
cop shows.  When it's explained to them that they are in a different country,
where those rights do not exist, they become outraged.  --Neal Stephenson