Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language Tags
"Peter Occil" <poccil14@gmail.com> Wed, 14 May 2014 10:09 UTC
Return-Path: <poccil14@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 7E8261A0286; Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.389
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.389 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] 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 RtXkbs2FE0aM; Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8085E1A027E; Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id i8so2392646qcq.15 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:importance; bh=RPN0I8iHie0afCHczSOV0QlFHA5YEirOfYqiRK2DWTI=; b=fkCv/1JxvG4N71yr8fwoWs9bFp6toAhFrz5a0l+TH3dKxRHWBxECS0yM0/mt8utO5S 0qZf4kWtb0vUfe2Le/VGrdnSFggEzthPQsZZneDdGPpP7b6PXExORLjVs+YSXq/SiCpm jn5O53OPtqUuN5B7LwmgJyc92SUpf39JUFCE/SDkmGqOqbQKHrMosgtXYgg56fU95U0A rOS5C664PWhWaEpVdaRErA/o8/Obu7ArgV/Z2GwCWrmk8T+e6nMeZ8uyNLoHwdhoLGOL EsKdZo1ZCzDtCWge1rPnkzVlY7H97Ef3Cx9oAFtdBTe4+eit8OPvcwrtct56RaBxKkYp qLDQ==
X-Received: by 10.140.28.198 with SMTP id 64mr3974845qgz.49.1400062172763; Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC (c-50-169-108-108.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [50.169.108.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d18sm2204747qac.28.2014.05.14.03.09.31 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 14 May 2014 03:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <92A56D2F207E4A9893AEDBC13336FA28@PeterPC>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.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>
In-Reply-To: <0C126A09-1909-449E-B0B4-9F41677710E2@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 06:09:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 140513-3, 05/13/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/kfnxgFpccs1GO5IY35XIwxmSMsw
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.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 10:09:40 -0000
I have one last issue. I want to clarify that the language tag and the
tagged string can optionally be annotated with CBOR tags. For example:
38([tagX("en"), tagY("Hello world")])
I think this will address some of the "scalability" issue that Martin Duerst
raised.
--Peter
- [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag fo… Ira McDonald
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR ta… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR ta… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Fwd: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR ta… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Dave Cridland
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Mark Davis ☕️
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Mark Davis ☕️
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Dave Cridland
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Dave Cridland
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Mark Davis ☕️
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Mark Davis ☕️
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Fwd: Defining a CBOR ta… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil
- Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for… Peter Occil