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

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com> Wed, 14 May 2014 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@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 CFC321A017A; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 z37ja0vtVwyo; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59F211A0102; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id i8so3352074qcq.18 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=0K0xKkUOWSJiJSyRR0KoRAeSiGommR+4demm553do4s=; b=uVoGBsAN0BVG2Z59awKSpwvvIlwbYPI8XCTYHJbowGD5h+l1BBYpLpYeeIQHJjM7bi /T3HnKqJwbZDJEOEwIUltwfBocFnE9jvxRyNUVW4jx729x9wNQgvW44VGEM7XKry+U5S e4AxUn8pO7f4L8po/IdrZ0pbC3dZo+U2IAMrWsSv/onw+6ozrj7+zZVS2iiKDQSEdXKp yBkV1FwJ1zD2zKXh9mJjT8qI+9LhYDTViAsltU+AK2PPwGTxg02a9EHYVfJkp8bcPbW+ /yXqm1v3zYrCim6j1F72GEH2bPBGf/kLwFqcP049UR7OobJFj47sgvRtL9JSL+ZwunAK iq9g==
X-Received: by 10.224.112.74 with SMTP id v10mr5665198qap.28.1400088883532; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.151.81 with HTTP; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzyFAyLciHD0gzGM_5eaEqXdUFbyK8cJ_gVsQjmc+0fWEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18971982.1399873468367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <9BE5D3F7FAEE4CAB8FD3326ED8F1ED75@PeterPC> <CAKHUCzyFAyLciHD0gzGM_5eaEqXdUFbyK8cJ_gVsQjmc+0fWEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:34:23 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HCN-uV9k4syZ-T-hyyO971VtaEY
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_Hz=kjfriBY_HLsRHyXhV1+Oz26sBgK5mZRx=RVwFe23g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3b23a8e996204f95f98a8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/ZHSXUsco20TEkh0U7y6GRwQqzXc
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language 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 17:34:52 -0000

> 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
>
>