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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 19 May 2014 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 9A18B1A0435; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_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 aK13OYzUsN0L; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBBF81A015F; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4JMlT4L002515; Tue, 20 May 2014 00:47:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p54893C54.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.60.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F94513E9; Tue, 20 May 2014 00:47:28 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <2C9B140A7DFC42BEAE99AAA458EC9354@PeterPC>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 00:47:26 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 422232446.806613-e6b2fbfc81d6ab6dcf6422d966010862
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C781C151-D92F-47B4-8429-B7C6FF7A9165@tzi.org>
References: <18971982.1399873468367.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <9BE5D3F7FAEE4CAB8FD3326ED8F1ED75@PeterPC> <CAKHUCzyFAyLciHD0gzGM_5eaEqXdUFbyK8cJ_gVsQjmc+0fWEA@mail.gmail.com> <0C126A09-1909-449E-B0B4-9F41677710E2@tzi.org> <92A56D2F207E4A9893AEDBC13336FA28@PeterPC> <15955C4E122344DDBBAA53E803A8F08E@PeterPC> <CF9FB676.4A4AE%jhildebr@cisco.com> <2C9B140A7DFC42BEAE99AAA458EC9354@PeterPC>
To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/h7HaN2SdHaEOdNwT269AOn10BGs
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] 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: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:47:41 -0000

On 20 May 2014, at 00:35, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, one problem that I see is that this requires case-insensitive comparison of
> keys: if a decoder encounters a language map with two keys that differ only in case (for example, "en" and "EN"), which one should it use?  

We generally handle problematic cases like this well by simply disallowing their use by the sender.
It then matters less how a receiver handles incoming improper streams.

Maybe this is another reason to require case-mapping to lower-case.
More aggressively, maybe combine this with at least a “SHOULD” for canonical form as in section 4.5 of RFC 5646?

Grüße, Carsten