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

"Peter Occil" <> Mon, 19 May 2014 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FA01A0444; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.604
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.604 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, TVD_FINGER_02=1.215] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jjrNvWnwTnD; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79FCA1A0442; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q107so10127799qgd.1 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:48 -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:content-transfer-encoding:importance; bh=5zt3FXm9NcSG6PWVE1xPOzocM0h81ofrUDyJKPh7WDU=; b=oDHHkrdK9zOl/AjZjQxfYUnfWISkvY7n9dQWzUK0yRAJ/EjFOzm2u7OP2FZB4oUSv2 +b+ZR9rmbgClZpT8gOaUSFDWr7RHXhPJmyFgjawEnXRmB7jMqBeVSwPV9FzZbf3/RTC1 H9THiOGO2iCeEarwgxS7qhxbsT1TTr6Dg+xINTs/t2nOGFLWfisttUPEbNlOaBijAj3C r3yCZ2FOHQAQDCXUhu+U/hgOy6EC66mcDT8ALYDb9nnMdk0A5WJX6LJnMXJ/Onyq08fH T0gWYPab2LG0TAL12sZi4b3PPRr6O9HlL/5n/0dD+CV3Z32DcguZV1DdcNrj4sbAr81w HMxg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p12mr10252133qac.84.1400540268729; Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x1sm29709121qal.36.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 May 2014 15:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E728C7DF5A84CF0A21189FBF29381C4@PeterPC>
From: Peter Occil <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
References: <> <9BE5D3F7FAEE4CAB8FD3326ED8F1ED75@PeterPC> <> <> <92A56D2F207E4A9893AEDBC13336FA28@PeterPC> <15955C4E122344DDBBAA53E803A8F08E@PeterPC> <> <2C9B140A7DFC42BEAE99AAA458EC9354@PeterPC> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 18:57:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 140519-1, 05/19/2014), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>,, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language 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: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:57:51 -0000

A good idea.  But my point still stands that a language map should be in a 
different tag proposal, if possible.  There may still be other issues with 
changing this proposal from language-tagged strings to language-tagged maps 
that haven't been dealt with yet, but again, I don't mind if tag 38 
eventually does take that course.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Carsten Bormann
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 6:47 PM
To: Peter Occil
Cc: Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) ; LTRU Working Group ;
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Ltru] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646Language 

On 20 May 2014, at 00:35, Peter Occil <> 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