Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)

[Nik Tomkinson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

thanks for your comments.

The usage of the phrase 'language code' in that paragraph was certainly
unintentional and now I understand how much difference it makes, I will of
course update that.

I'll also update the examples.

We originally had a paragraph that recommended using the highest level of
categorisation for language tags to get an improved interoperability but
this was later removed. I think the original assumption was that matching
preferred languages with the tag values would be difficult if script codes
and country codes were also included. This is probably not the case.

Thanks again,

Nik.

On 17 August 2017 at 14:21, Nik Tomkinson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I will try to address these (and the other comments) and respond later
> today.
>
> Nik.
>
> On 17 August 2017 at 11:15, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> > On 8/17/17 4:29 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> > > Hi Adam,
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 12:50 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> > >> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>> > >> draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: No Objection
>> > >> I note that this mechanism uses only language tags and implicitly
>> leaves
>> > >> aside
>> > >> any discussion of script or region tags.
>> > > Actually this is not true. Language Tags as specified in RFC 5646 can
>> > > optionally include all of these things.
>> > >
>> > >> I'm going to assume this was a
>> > >> intentional decision that was considered by the group with the end
>> result
>> > >> being
>> > >> that there was no perceived need to distinguish between (e.g.) Latin
>> and
>> > >> Jawi
>> > >> scripts for Malay, or (e.g.) Brazilian and Portuguese variations of
>> 'pt'.
>> > >> (If
>> > >> this was not an explicit decision made by the WG, I would ask that
>> it be
>> > >> posed
>> > >> to the WG for an explicit decision -- the current mechanism seems
>> > >> somewhat
>> > >> deficient in this regard from my admittedly brief analysis of the
>> > >> situation.)
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm a little worried that an imprecise reading by implementors of the
>> > >> citation
>> > >> to RFC5646 may lead them to believe that script and region tags may
>> be
>> > >> included
>> > >> in the Content-Language header fields.
>> > > They are absolutely allowed.
>> >
>> > Wow. If I had gone to implement this, I would have gotten it 100% wrong,
>> > and argued with anyone who told me as much. The document says:
>> >
>> >     The Content-Language MUST comply with RFC 3282 [RFC3282] (which
>> >     defines the Content-Language field) and BCP 47/RFC 5646 [RFC5646]
>> >     (which defines the structure and semantics for the language code
>> >     values).
>> >
>> >
>> > What is worth taking note of here is the fact that this says "language
>> > *code* values," not "language *tag* values." RFC 5646 defines a Language
>> > _Tag_ (e.g., "sr-Latn-RS"), that is composed of a Language _Code_ (e.g.,
>> > "sr") followed by an optional Script Code (e.g., "Latn") and an optional
>> > Country Code (e.g., "RS").
>>
>> Good point. Content-Language is defined for language tags, we didn't
>> change that. I don't think the above difference was intentional.
>> Authors?
>>
>> > As if to reinforce this, the examples then show values of the
>> > Content-Language header field that consist exclusively of language
>> > codes, even though it predominantly uses two languages with regional
>> > variations (en and es): to my eye, "en" by itself looks strange, as I'm
>> > used to always seeing that language written as either "en-US" or
>> "en-GB".
>> >
>> > So I would suggest (a) the passage above be changed to say "...for the
>> > language tag values...", and (b) the examples be amended to show more
>> > than simple language codes; e.g.:
>> >
>> >     Content-Language: en-US
>> >
>> >     Content-Language: de
>> >
>> >     Content-Language: es-ES, fr
>> >
>> >     Content-Language: sr-Cyrl
>>
>> Yes, good idea to use better examples.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Multiple Language Content Type Internet Draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Language Content Type Internet Draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/

-----------------------------------------------------------------