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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 14 May 2014, at 09:18, Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> wrote:

> embedding language tags in invalid UTF-8

In 2010, RFC 6082 deprecated that (and moved RFC 2482 to Historic), saying:

   It is an idea whose
   time never quite came.  It has been superseded by whole-transaction
   language identification such as the MIME Content-language header
   [RFC3282] and more general markup mechanisms such as those provided
   by XML.  The Unicode Consortium has deprecated the language tag
   character facility and strongly recommends against its use.

The application that motivated the new CBOR tag we are talking about happens not to require multi-language strings.
(It seems their usage is mostly about internationalization, i.e., pairing a string with its locale.)

If such a facility were needed, it could be modeled as (shown in CBOR diagnostic notation):

somenewtag([[“en”, "She said ‘“], [“fr”, “Bonjour”], [“en”, "', and then ‘“], [“zh”, “你好”], [“en”, "’.”]])

or even, maximizing compatibility by using the proposed tag as well:

othernewtag([38([“en”, "She said ‘“]), 38([“fr”, “Bonjour”]), 38([“en”, "', and then ‘“]), 38([“zh”, “你好”]), 38([“en”, "’.”])])

(there are many other ways this could be modeled, too).

Grüße, Carsten