IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 23:19 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 6FE851A0671 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6QpD9jnATNLS for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985A51A02AF for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id lx4so9268286iec.5 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=T3hjWQ00QJQqVr0IM6nN75O8zge+XUIyxLyvuZ0u8Ns=; b=bj07K4ZScvOj/aDkX5WP1q3Mo1rlJ65pKmZA7lVEyFSLi4LkHTdnx7lDqkguRlOyPv iSPSsqb8YtyNqKyukjWzCoZCCaJwrn5XHF7NSwMASajnJ9DosaBJewukCFKPWE6e7hus HcNsMrlDz1a+5vgHAmml0m64cxaTH6/hoN1K4vMeFjCjOJvlNAQJ0F5cf+NnZzN97Wf2 O6dzgYUz+Ue+7Y3t1vb1/HJHrfB5GarzxrxHVsclTwCnsG40ccmkF9GvzDDHpVPQaXzN rG7sVVEQJGLyokytwWjAxQuOPDEktNk67bDx6a/OV6wW+yAwsYbEBO2zF8rSIUw2/Ey0 chpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.50.68 with SMTP id z4mr6773264icf.70.1401232761117; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.13.134 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.13.134 with HTTP; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140527093358.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.f8941d8c46.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
References: <20140527093358.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.f8941d8c46.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:19:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZYACKWy73QmALDX4SHiVDN5+PCcF-v82Puw3V77dquO4wKHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="90e6ba212499f9642704fa69ec30"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ltru/rO5kdbuTjCxglosfRNLbIYFnQKE
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language 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: Tue, 27 May 2014 23:19:25 -0000

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

--Peter
On May 27, 2014 12:34 PM, "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> 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
> http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email