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

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Fri, 16 May 2014 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
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 AAF481A0032 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 19:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.539
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] 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 FT3YYW6OPQWI for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 May 2014 19:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa07-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa07-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04611A000F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 May 2014 19:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DougEwell ([65.128.12.85]) by p3plsmtpa07-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id 2SYV1o0051q5wH501SYV3D; Thu, 15 May 2014 19:32:31 -0700
Message-ID: <63CE3F1B0A474CD9B023A3D330BEED32@DougEwell>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Mark_Davis_=E2=98=95=EF=B8=8F?= <mark@macchiato.com>
References: <20140515083955.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.b69c089194.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <CAJ2xs_H60RHSoUWYb4b_pioM9qG+RzNrMiGqZm_R6QVotabHjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2xs_H60RHSoUWYb4b_pioM9qG+RzNrMiGqZm_R6QVotabHjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:32:49 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/Ka6SN5wiPrDXMKgG9bn2ngUoZ5M
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 02:32:39 -0000

Mark Davis 🍶 wrote:

>> But if this "tagged text" model is too far out of step with the
>> CBOR/JSON way of thinking, Plane 14 is out there.
>
> ​I was perhaps not forceful enough. Deprecated Unicode characters
> should *never* be generated by any modern software, and that includes
> the language tags. They certainly should not be used in any new
> protocol.

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?

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­