Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Thu, 17 August 2017 10:15 UTC
Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: slim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE351323B4; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=gR8i5EIl; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=XnGdgUd4
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 7p2ORf3a72iP; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41EA2126B71; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E7720DBF; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web5 ([10.202.2.215]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:15:08 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=PR9P5tDnzrqDtz4zao6TZ5C4Yi7Gs BXeRCchffM5uwA=; b=gR8i5EIl9R9I3cRN6ypHz/zMNRL3BkKt8bwAP9NmPFPlX NDrWTEnBuOemFKYwips/4o0pfptESJjJnjiehCMBBOds9QJqEtnNQcy2JbtYwv0J Q+y+UyhMun49hRQR9tGdziLJ9i9s/gmQsMVhdw154T+NuX8i0QldAyRk38Adpa9A BTrnHyb6/2eeptSiMpCWRyllpYzkqTJQRAKEAspFBDMddIhYR2DVwspUnzUQI4Do 6feZ0M7asqjtKTluS/6y9y7IKuW+xj9ulLHhiGo+QqID58RjRTp6d3BQ7vZ7rcvd jLw5pOroRHaUCF9KbYfC3F4CIUonyGU394H5togZQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=PR9P5t DnzrqDtz4zao6TZ5C4Yi7GsBXeRCchffM5uwA=; b=XnGdgUd40ohWXrJP1tJ6W9 LvO9G7qbdnAz+uzHKbICgqS4JL6+0IzLjYOuAA6Ls4DA/OcDER5+8eRrBXIkteyT N1fHKrckNDX7q7sgeimNlmNrPEAd4PLBmG36iQuO+vOhmw+ralV0QdOJIpW/8NfH eK4eG37gPYUhNs2n6P+ftEjcaqJKZaqz4Er8FGFKbO5/wdccTsmSlCpcNSkK/cAw o0y3bK26GHTQqHwU+ohFsRP2D5qoEB5V0/nj/wERFE84gtUHgn1OpmoKp22yzD/s 96SKF8G0VmVL0ociitvNr9+eu8+cgL430oq6GG1iCq867LB4NFGrY2ILqTMzwSsg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:rGyVWZLI2yzFVY4H9a92sP6E3niyh2gAkAhT_sofxcnxL1oe7HmBVQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 82ECA9E30E; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 06:15:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1502964908.2431249.1076255576.026440DD@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: slim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent@ietf.org, slim-chairs@ietf.org, bernard.aboba@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-21c69044
In-Reply-To: <eee8abeb-aa90-a1a6-5961-900ca1a88c05@nostrum.com>
References: <150292740024.12316.10186295594648032334.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1502962175.1590900.1076220224.097DD098@webmail.messagingengine.com> <eee8abeb-aa90-a1a6-5961-900ca1a88c05@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 11:15:08 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/slim/zNkjdueakcH-Fj0X2HLkv6KSGEg>
Subject: Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: slim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Selection of Language for Internet Media <slim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/slim/>
List-Post: <mailto:slim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/slim>, <mailto:slim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:15:11 -0000
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.
- [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-sl… Adam Roach
- Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Adam Roach
- Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Nik Tomkinson
- Re: [Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Nik Tomkinson