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

From: Ira McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 19:50:19 -0400

Hi,

<oops - retrying with the correct LTRU WG address this time, I hope...>

Forwarding this note to the LTRU list for language tag experts to review.
Please copy your reply to IETF Apps Discuss list (see below).

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
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 <[email-masked]>
Cc: Peter Occil <[email-masked]>

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:

http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/langtags.html

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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 01:37:03 -0400

> non-experts all the time.

Looks good to me.  But I would recommend requiring the encoder to do the
case folding rather than leaving it to the decoder.  This is a form of
early uniform normalization, which is generally a Good Thing if you can
get it.

The main mistake people make is trying to make the language tag fixed
length, which you have already avoided.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        [email-masked]
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax."
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?"
  --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists