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

["Doug Ewell" <[e-mail]>]

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:

> I'm sure you're not implying that I think invalid UTF-8 would have
> been a good idea, but your statement might not be clear to others.

To clarify, I got that impression from Dave's remark, which is why I
originally quoted it:

] Many years ago, Mark Crispin and Chris Newman had a proposal for
] embedding language tags in invalid UTF-8; I seem to recall they
] publicly renounced their proposal rather dramatically in favour of a
] Unicode Consortium proposal for embedding the language tags somewhere
] in Plane 14 - published as RFC 2482.
] 
] The fact it was all initiated in order to support the pressing needs
] of ACAP might give you some hints as to why it never really took off,
] but as a counter-proposal to language tags in metadata, it might be
] worth re-examining.

I'm not sure, upon re-reading this, whether Dave meant to say that Plane
14 tags or invalid UTF-8 was worth re-examining.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell