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

> as a counter-proposal to language tags in metadata, it might be worth
re-examining.

The tag characters in Unicode are deprecated, and should not be used.

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

 *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

On 14 May 2014 00:18, Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> wrote:

> On 14 May 2014 04:33, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any use case where having multiple language tags for the
>> same plain-text string is useful.  For instance, RDF supports only one
>> language tag for each string.  And HTML5 doesn't support multiple languages
>> in the Content-Language header field or META tag; instead, for multilingual
>> documents, it relies on markup to set the language used for each section.
>> But plain-text strings don't admit of HTML-like markup without more.
>>
>> Moreover, having multiple language tags for plain text leads to the
>> additional problem of determining which parts of the text each language tag
>> applies to, which is not so easy in the case of your three-language example.
>>
>
> 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.
>
> Dave.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>