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


[Apparently the former IETF LTRU WG mailing list is not working - can't
forward to it.]

Forwarding to W3C Internationalization WG mailing list to get comments
from language tag experts.

Please copy Carsten and Peter directly on any replies and also (if you're
a subscriber) the IETF Apps Discuss mailing list (see below).

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, May 11, 2014 at 6:48 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] Defining a CBOR tag for RFC 5646 Language Tags
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Cc: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>

If you care about language tags, I hope the subject got your
attention.  If you don't, please ignore this request for assistance.

Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a binary
format for structured objects.  CBOR has a number of pre-defined data
types and allows additional data types to be registered as "tags".
Among the pre-defined data types is a text string (Unicode characters,
encoded in UTF-8).  No facility is pre-defined for associating a
Language Tag with such a string.

A new CBOR tag is being proposed for combining a CBOR text string with
a Language Tag.  The (single-page) proposal is in:


The proposal is almost trivially obvious (pair a language tag with an
UTF-8 string in a two-element array) and looks right to me.  But I'm
not an expert in Language Tags, and silly mistakes are being made by
non-experts all the time.

If you are an expert in Language Tags:
-- Is anything missing or could anything be done in a better way?
-- Or does this really simply look right?

Responses to me privately or to the list are appreciated.

Grüße, Carsten

apps-discuss mailing list

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2014 23:58:05 UTC