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

"Peter Occil" <> Wed, 28 May 2014 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC8A1A02D9 for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G-F2zaG1gZMy for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6CA31A06BC for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q107so16058633qgd.10 for <>; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:importance; bh=oYWMgdFxZT2uXw0oRr5jhjKM4BzGPVEWDM+3bsbO/hM=; b=qVd19+OLMAsPQ7kyYVz4omJz7hnWQF3xV00qthcWHcuiJf/tL6FLzjDyWwFGcreE3e iwUD2JRJworrHI9D5cuIbQaKUlMQ5Mxuop7jDAV6ggSdY/gz3xUfnpqdw0h7OKTOPd/G qKz1Yc9joeEGj1xT4WACSNMsa2RqCnHA7jTeemk1yZovOKf5Llj7bGkJO540+WYNsUPD xC6EDm4zoeGrlsyhzTYlpoJiW3f2aNZCjOt65tNaINig3oiZQGjJ4WI27yLKwRDg3q/o XX3Me5PFFDljTjAShoH2J78/ihfyTE3YGWFmSMA61pKqI1I2ovqV8TQIuNQdu5Ewm1NF /ifg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i11mr26912188qaq.50.1401244625035; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l10sm15468215qae.41.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 27 May 2014 19:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <EB19CE9B4BBB42B7AF9BA5CC207E4694@PeterPC>
From: "Peter Occil" <>
To: "Doug Ewell" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:36:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_01CF79FC.2594C520"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140527-1, 05/27/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 02:37:22 -0000

I’ve now updated the document by editing the note further to address Doug’s concerns.


From: Peter Occil 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:19 PM
To: Doug Ewell 
Cc: LTRU Working Group 
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags

Your comment is addressed.  I have made that part of the document a note and the document is now updated. 


On May 27, 2014 12:34 PM, "Doug Ewell" <> wrote:

  "Peter Occil" <poccil14 at gmail dot com> wrote:

  > Is there any more discussion on this document? I feel like this CBOR
  > tag is ready to be registered.

  RFC 5646, Section 2.1.1 has a perfectly good description of how to
  handle tags that differ only in case, like "en" and "EN": they are
  completely equivalent in all respects. I'm not sure why the CBOR tag
  couldn't just use this existing rule instead of defining its own rules
  on case sensitivity and case mapping, but that's up to the CBOR folks.

  Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | @DougEwell