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

"Peter Occil" <poccil14@gmail.com> Wed, 14 May 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <poccil14@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 A20C81A01FB for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 3wymds77sigQ for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22f.google.com (mail-qg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742DB1A01B6 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j107so350336qga.6 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:importance; bh=SzNKD0bczxH7fH8TIYbOle2ISvDKRf/vQ1L7OjBM4uY=; b=hJgpFquYAU7x9L3cr2XDg6CR0OBZNPb8bqQvvAnE/9nbjiC+O+842ZirqT+Bu+YIv1 QzZIY3ybxdCioKfnViNZ8U6qiOE2hGC5JSkf1Wz8eeuVXZ7sFQguVkIKHIIgQo0uUAnW EjxJTHrz4SrUZtlpzzh/S89Lo0Do73RLrt0W7d8f6HSKSE7Oa5Ee9RDaHXpjpYU+xQxB joEmi9fWEjoigNrsD9WPVysn7wLvBXbpBsqcH8rlHpIZL9jQGFF86VwDMgggcacwH0p5 eMiPSQob+3XUrVRJED+bvxU4IwtofuuoV+MqfQPy4dgS9IDZih+9WqtmW8CzugFAaxxZ DzaA==
X-Received: by 10.224.147.208 with SMTP id m16mr7880158qav.13.1400105074431; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC (c-50-169-108-108.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [50.169.108.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm4801927qal.29.2014.05.14.15.04.33 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 May 2014 15:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <BBDC3BF8D9364C309663E7DEC34C4E88@PeterPC>
From: "Peter Occil" <poccil14@gmail.com>
To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Mark_Davis_=E2=98=95=EF=B8=8F?= <mark@macchiato.com>
References: <20140514144716.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.4ebffc2f64.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140514144716.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.4ebffc2f64.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 18:04:26 -0400
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
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140514-1, 05/14/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/MItBuSlVAkCQG3LnkDGMw_7tqvI
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: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:04:42 -0000

"I'm not sure, upon re-reading this, whether Dave meant to say that Plane
14 tags or invalid UTF-8 was worth re-examining."

I understood it all along to mean the Plane 14 characters.

That tag characters are deprecated is one of the reasons for the CBOR tag 
proposal.  How CBOR processors should handle invalid UTF-8 is definitely out 
of scope for my CBOR tag proposal.

-------------

I also have just one issue I want to resolve before I move my proposal 
forward; I repeat it here:

"I want to clarify that the language tag and the
tagged string can optionally be annotated with CBOR tags.  For example:

38([tagX("en"), tagY("Hello world")])

I think this will address some of the "scalability" issue that Martin Duerst
raised."

--Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Doug Ewell
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:47 PM
To: Mark Davis ☕️
Cc: LTRU Working Group ; Dave Cridland
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 
Language Tags

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

> I'm sure you're not implying that I think invalid UTF-8 would have
> been a good idea, but your statement might not be clear to others.

To clarify, I got that impression from Dave's remark, which is why I
originally quoted it:

] Many years ago, Mark Crispin and Chris Newman had a proposal for
] embedding language tags in invalid UTF-8; I seem to recall they
] publicly renounced their proposal rather dramatically in favour of a
] Unicode Consortium proposal for embedding the language tags somewhere
] in Plane 14 - published as RFC 2482.
]
] The fact it was all initiated in order to support the pressing needs
] of ACAP might give you some hints as to why it never really took off,
] but as a counter-proposal to language tags in metadata, it might be
] worth re-examining.

I'm not sure, upon re-reading this, whether Dave meant to say that Plane
14 tags or invalid UTF-8 was worth re-examining.

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


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru