Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 18 July 2009 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7183A6948 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.097, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x17PtpWIDUF7 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 63E293A67DD for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2009 11:57:50 -0000
Received: from p508FE471.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.228.113] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2009 13:57:50 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+NPp0tNU6NNs23QzHQZ+jWhJxcXIr8Fhqu+KEZyc qAh5ldIX9O7Wo9
Message-ID: <4A61B8B7.7030200@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:57:43 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <48049274.3090501@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <48049274.3090501@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.66
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:59:47 -0000

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> OK,
> 
> thanks for all the feedback so far. I (hopefully) have addressed many of 
> the issues; here's the new proposed text for 3.5:
> ...

We stopped to discuss this 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/13>) 15 months ago; 
in the meantime RFC4646bis went through many revisions, and now is 
approved and in the RFC Editor queue.

I have updated the proposed change for HTTPbis Part 3 accordingly; see 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/13/i13.4.diff>.

The full text now would read:

--
2.4.  Language Tags

    A language tag, as defined in [RFC4646bis], identifies a natural
    language spoken, written, or otherwise conveyed by human beings for
    communication of information to other human beings.  Computer
    languages are explicitly excluded.  HTTP uses language tags within
    the Accept-Language and Content-Language fields.

    In summary, a language tag is composed of one or more parts: A
    primary language subtag followed by a possibly empty series of
    subtags:

      language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC4646bis], Section 2.1>

    White space is not allowed within the tag and all tags are case-
    insensitive.  The name space of language subtags is administered by
    the IANA (see
    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry>).

    Example tags include:

      en, en-US, es-419, az-Arab, x-pig-latin, man-Nkoo-GN

    See [RFC4646bis] for further information.
--

I understand that back in April 2008 we still discussed various details, 
such as

1) The exact wording of the "summary",
2) whether we're referring the right ABNF production (does it need to be 
  "obs-language-tag" instead, or both), and
3) the examples

(the discussion is archived around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008AprJun/0210.html>)

I'd really like to close this one finally, so feedback from the language 
tag experts would be appreciated.

BR, Julian