From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 01 00:36:16 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4Af9-0003zc-94; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:36:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4Aex-0003xs-7i for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:36:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09269 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4Apb-0006YM-Ge for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:47:04 -0500 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1F4AeS-0001TS-PC; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:35:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:35:32 -0500 To: Randy Presuhn Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 1039 on administration of ietf-languages@iana.org Message-ID: <20060201053532.GB2478@ccil.org> References: <12459347.1138768941524.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <12459347.1138768941524.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Randy Presuhn scripsit: > Given the IAB decision announced in > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40406.html , > I'd like to know whether there is any interest in producing, > after the ltru WG completes its current deliverables, > an update to the registry draft to address issue #1039? > (issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ with user and password "ietf") I think it's premature until the IESG rules. See Harald's email at http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40417.html ; the IAB has simply thrown the decision back to the IESG. -- BALIN FUNDINUL UZBAD KHAZADDUMU cowan@ccil.org BALIN SON OF FUNDIN LORD OF KHAZAD-DUM http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 01 00:43:10 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4Alp-0004kn-UN; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:43:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4AlU-0004hN-Ek for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:43:08 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09573 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:40:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F4AkN-0000hS-UC for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:41:40 +0100 Received: from 1cust232.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.18.232]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:41:39 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust232.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:41:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:40:24 +0100 Organization: Lines: 23 Message-ID: <43E049C8.8E3@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <12459347.1138768941524.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust232.tnt6.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: Issue 1039 on administration of ietf-languages@iana.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Randy Presuhn wrote: > I'd like to know whether there is any interest in producing, > after the ltru WG completes its current deliverables, > an update to the registry draft to address issue #1039? Let "them" figure out a general solution for all review lists, also covering a future "location dictionary" review list, the URI review list, the mail header field registry review list, and the charset registry review list, just to name the few I know of. At the moment the IESG apparently has to decide the original issue again, I've no idea what that decision could be. And some folks like John, Margaret, and Sam apparently want to start an 3933 experiment with some improved 3934 rules. IMHO it's not the time for LTRU to create its very own mess, if anything that would be now worse than in June 2005, see also Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 01 11:43:26 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4L4o-0001zY-JD; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:43:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4L4n-0001vJ-UX; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:43:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13510; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:41:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4LFn-00046G-Lu; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:54:48 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F4L3d-00077x-QR; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:42:16 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060201172024.05e5aeb0@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:38:51 +0100 To: Randy Presuhn From: r&d afrac Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 1039 on administration of ietf-languages@iana.org In-Reply-To: <20060201053532.GB2478@ccil.org> References: <12459347.1138768941524.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <20060201053532.GB2478@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-569229C6 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: ltru@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 06:35 01/02/2006, John Cowan wrote: >Randy Presuhn scripsit: > > > Given the IAB decision announced in > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40406.html , > > I'd like to know whether there is any interest in producing, > > after the ltru WG completes its current deliverables, > > an update to the registry draft to address issue #1039? > > (issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ with user and password "ietf") I do not know why I did not get that mail. Anyway, the IAB has only said IETF rules had to be loyally respected. It also decided not to comment my efforts over internationalisation, users needs consideration and ethical matters, I voluntarily bundled with my appeal, to know if they were objected. RFC 3066 bis is currently under IESG appeal. The status of the ietf-languages@alvestrand.no is discussed in this appeal. I would therefore suggest that we wait for the decision of the IESG, to a possible appeal to IAB and for an IESG subsequent position. At that time IGF and UNESCO meetings may have added some new elements affecting the global role of the IANA and of the IETF language codes. This WG should then be in a better position and in a cooler mode to address the ietf-languages@iana.org related issues. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 01 18:23:27 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4RJv-0001jU-9q; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:23:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4RJr-0001dQ-UO for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:23:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA26072 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:21:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.240.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4RV2-0005Rq-Tf for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:35:00 -0500 Received: from charger ([68.100.55.187]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060201232306.HPTX4894.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@charger>; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:23:06 -0500 From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'Randy Presuhn'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue 1039 on administration of ietf-languages@iana.org Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:22:58 -0500 Message-ID: <002301c62786$6ffe5e40$0623520a@charger> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Thread-Index: AcYm6n239WJE2zcuSXygwoCyAtHySwAm6gLA In-Reply-To: <12459347.1138768941524.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:42 PM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] Issue 1039 on administration of > ietf-languages@iana.org > > Hi - > > As a technical contributor... > > Given the IAB decision announced in > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40406.ht > ml , I'd like to know whether there is any interest in > producing, after the ltru WG completes its current > deliverables, an update to the registry draft to address issue #1039? > (issue tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ with user and password "ietf") Randy, I should note that the IESG intends to deal with the issue. It's likely that there will be some sort of document update to confirm that non-wg lists like ietf-languages are covered by the same policies as wg lists. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 02 23:19:31 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4sPz-0001FA-0w; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:19:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4sPt-00018o-Di for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:19:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA19403 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2006 23:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from pop04.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([207.69.200.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4sap-0004TW-UW for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:30:45 -0500 Received: from mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.224.29]) by pop04.mail.atl.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1F4sPE-0005oV-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:18:44 -0500 Message-ID: <22134084.1138940324104.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:18:44 +0700 (GMT+07:00) From: Randy Presuhn To: ltru@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ltru] Issue 1039 on administration of ietf-languages@iana.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Randy Presuhn List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - It looks like there's a strong concensus that we do not need to revisit issue #1039 (https://rt.psg.com/ user & password "ietf") after we finish our remaining deliverable. Randy, ltru co-chair _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 11:20:58 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F696o-0002RQ-MV; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:20:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F696n-0002Q2-DY for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:20:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00680 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:19:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay03.pair.com ([209.68.5.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F69Iv-0006Dg-6v for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:33:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 49198 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2006 16:20:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 6 Feb 2006 16:20:49 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.23.194.196 Message-ID: <43E77718.9020201@icu-project.org> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:19:36 -0800 From: Mark Davis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ltru@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org According to https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0, this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. Is there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? Mark* * _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 12:07:25 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F69pk-0005Qq-Ue; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:07:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F69pj-0005PH-H8 for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:07:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA04355 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:05:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.blacka.com ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6A1w-0000ZX-Oh for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:20:02 -0500 Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN sah, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:06:23 -0500 id 0158800A.43E7820F.00001B06 From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'Mark Davis'" , ltru@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:07:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <43E77718.9020201@icu-project.org> Thread-Index: AcYrOYO9Bd95WecbSoGW8H0rvYS0kwABU4Rw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > > According to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie > w_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0, > this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. Is > there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? The queue it self is visible here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the matching draft to be completed. While the matching draft isn't identified as a normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's decision to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new document so that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066. I know that's not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an issue during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant. The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates. Based on the status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching document finished if you want it to move. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 12:23:29 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6A5J-0003Zv-5N; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:23:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6A5I-0003ZK-5j for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:23:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA05606 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:21:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay02.pair.com ([209.68.5.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6AHN-0001az-Ct for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:35:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 77891 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2006 17:23:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 6 Feb 2006 17:23:16 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.23.194.196 Message-ID: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:22:52 -0800 From: Mark Davis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ltru@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was just informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a lost battle. How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages were http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages. If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, I suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start the mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections? Mark Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM >> To: ltru@ietf.org >> Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry >> >> According to >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie >> w_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0, >> this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. Is >> there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? >> > > The queue it self is visible here: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html > > Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the matching > draft to be completed. While the matching draft isn't identified as a > normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's decision > to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new document so > that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066. I know that's > not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an issue > during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant. > > The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates. Based on the > status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching document > finished if you want it to move. > > -Scott- > > > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 12:42:38 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6ANp-0007kX-I3; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:42:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6ANm-0007jp-EJ for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:42:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA06896 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:40:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6AZs-0002kB-3V for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:55:05 -0500 Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN sah, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:41:39 -0500 id 0158800A.43E78A53.000022BD From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'Mark Davis'" , ltru@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:42:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> Thread-Index: AcYrQgZKmTQfO2DrRtSOEKee2R2x1gAAc1Ug X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:23 PM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Cc: Scott Hollenbeck > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > > Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the > latter was just > informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a lost > battle. The issue from the IESG's (and at least one external reviewer's) perspective was that there's nothing in section 2.5 of 3066 to suggest that the matching text is informative. The lack of 2119 imperatives does not mean "not normative". -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 12:56:07 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Aat-0002ii-BZ; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:56:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Aas-0002iC-5g; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:56:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07770; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6Amv-0003Rl-QI; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:08:35 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F6AaX-0002av-6L; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:55:45 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060206183518.06832df0@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:51:21 +0100 To: Mark Davis , ltru@ietf.org From: r&d afrac Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry In-Reply-To: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> References: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6252180E X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: iesg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 18:22 06/02/2006, Mark Davis wrote: >Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was >just informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like >a lost battle. >How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages were > >http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html >http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html > >I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages. >If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, >I suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start >the mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections? I will certainly carefully review the proposed draft (focusing on the filtering vs. profiling aspects, and on the relation with automated language identification algorithms and solutions - I feel necessary at this stage considering the status of the arts and semi-operational propositions). I thank you all for implicitely confirming what I felt: when I do not involve myself, not much work happens at the WG-LTRU. I must confess that the delay, provided by the WG-LTRU disinterest in moving the RFC 3066 update cause, did help me. But, it may be time to move on this issue, after the IAB ruling. Otherwise the IETF proposition will turn late vs. others! Please remember that Mark and most of you have a rendez-vous with your market on March 16th. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 13:18:48 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Awq-00006g-0F; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:18:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Awp-00004t-7a for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:18:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09871 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6B8M-0004lo-RK for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:30:44 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k16IBC8v069126; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:11:12 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=Z02ky7Kd0jvEaQa3FOKZwviqHC7VOUWUWo6x0vGXDxaaCLmdgvx4h4O+mMxLjDRk From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Mark Davis'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:12:58 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> Thread-Index: AcYrQjX5KzPzA+gqSA2OARto0i+//QABndYQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. I = didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, coincidentally, = marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying attention for a = couple of days). Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Mark Davis > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:23 AM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry >=20 > Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was = just > informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a lost > battle. >=20 > How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages = were >=20 > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html >=20 > I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages. >=20 > If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, I > suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start the > mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections? >=20 > Mark >=20 > Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM > >> To: ltru@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > >> > >> According to > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=3Dvie > >> w_id&dTag=3D13008&rfc_flag=3D0, > >> this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. = Is > >> there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? > >> > > > > The queue it self is visible here: > > > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html > > > > Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the = matching > > draft to be completed. While the matching draft isn't identified as = a > > normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's > decision > > to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new > document so > > that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066. I = know > that's > > not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an = issue > > during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant. > > > > The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates. Based = on > the > > status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching = document > > finished if you want it to move. > > > > -Scott- > > > > > > > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 13:39:09 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6BGW-0005ZT-Ux; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:39:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6BGW-0005Z9-AM for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:39:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA11164 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay01.pair.com ([209.68.5.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6BSd-0005rs-8w for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:51:39 -0500 Received: (qmail 39015 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2006 18:38:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 6 Feb 2006 18:38:56 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.23.194.196 Message-ID: <43E797BB.6040202@icu-project.org> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:38:51 -0800 From: Mark Davis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Addison Phillips Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry References: <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I just sent you my additions to 09 in XML, so we could go ahead and include them. Mark Addison Phillips wrote: > For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. I didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, coincidentally, marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying attention for a couple of days). > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Mark Davis >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:23 AM >> To: ltru@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry >> >> Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was just >> informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a lost >> battle. >> >> How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages were >> >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html >> >> I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages. >> >> If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, I >> suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start the >> mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections? >> >> Mark >> >> Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] >>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM >>>> To: ltru@ietf.org >>>> Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry >>>> >>>> According to >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie >>>> w_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0, >>>> this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more finely. Is >>>> there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? >>>> >>>> >>> The queue it self is visible here: >>> >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html >>> >>> Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the matching >>> draft to be completed. While the matching draft isn't identified as a >>> normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's >>> >> decision >> >>> to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new >>> >> document so >> >>> that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066. I know >>> >> that's >> >>> not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an issue >>> during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant. >>> >>> The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates. Based on >>> >> the >> >>> status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching document >>> finished if you want it to move. >>> >>> -Scott- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ltru mailing list >> Ltru@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 14:01:15 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Bbv-0002R3-4o; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:01:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Bbt-0002Pv-Nr for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:01:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12603 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:59:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6Bo7-0007A1-0N for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:13:53 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F6Bbi-0001h3-FS; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:01:03 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060206193213.048a4620@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:46:25 +0100 To: "Addison Phillips" , "'Mark Davis'" , From: r&d afrac Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry In-Reply-To: <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> References: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6252180E X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 19:12 06/02/2006, Addison Phillips wrote: >For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. >I didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, >coincidentally, marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying >attention for a couple of days). Congrats for your new employment! I mean it. jfc PS. But this also means that the WG-LTRU counts one Unicode member employee more. Also that both authors are Unicode members employees, one on the solution side and one on the service side. Will you sign as W3C or as Yahoo!? (I suggest you do as Mark and others and do not use your company mail name). I only use mine because this way people are informed I copy other members and that I specifically represent the interests of a community. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 14:43:25 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6CGj-0005d9-9c; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:43:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6CGh-0005d4-Si for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:43:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16210 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:41:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6CSw-0001GY-7z for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:56:03 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k16Jeue1009399 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:40:56 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=p229S/AEmQviokMmgtWEuzZ46/SpbkvHITw4VxdjAAiVEva/avQO+2KPQSmLQEeC From: "Addison Phillips" To: Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:42:42 -0800 Message-ID: <000701c62b55$7ed4af00$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <43E797BB.6040202@icu-project.org> Thread-Index: AcYrTKTbJ7oDm5qyS+CQcovbsaL5SgAB8rSQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I've updated the editor's copy of draft-09, including a new date and a = (modified, edited) version of Mark's text. Notably, I made the RFC 2119 = keywords UPPERCASE and fixed some terminology. The meaning is = substantially the same as Mark's proposals. I have posted the documents to the usual place: http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.html http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.xml I will submit this document pending idnits and the Fenner ABNF validator = shortly.=E3=80=80Any comments will be incorporated into draft-10. You = can view a diff (maybe) at: http://tinyurl.com/axdtj Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 10:39 AM > To: Addison Phillips > Cc: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry >=20 > I just sent you my additions to 09 in XML, so we could go ahead and > include them. >=20 > Mark >=20 > Addison Phillips wrote: > > For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. = I > didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, = coincidentally, > marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying attention for a = couple > of days). > > > > Addison > > > > Addison Phillips > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > It is not a feature. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of > >> Mark Davis > >> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:23 AM > >> To: ltru@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > >> > >> Holding up the registry dependent for matching, when the latter was > just > >> informative in 3066, is completely bizarre. But it sounds like a = lost > >> battle. > >> > >> How do we get moving on the matching document? My last two messages > were > >> > >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04315.html > >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg04317.html > >> > >> I heard nobody object to them in follow-on messages. > >> > >> If there are no other serious objections to parts of the documents, = I > >> suggest we issue a new draft containing that new text, and start = the > >> mechanism on getting to last call. Any objections? > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > >> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > >>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:20 AM > >>>> To: ltru@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > >>>> > >>>> According to > >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=3Dvie > >>>> w_id&dTag=3D13008&rfc_flag=3D0, > >>>> this is in RFC Ed Queue, but it isn't broken down any more = finely. Is > >>>> there any way to find out what the expected publication date is? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> The queue it self is visible here: > >>> > >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html > >>> > >>> Note that the RFC Editor is still holding the document for the > matching > >>> draft to be completed. While the matching draft isn't identified = as a > >>> normative reference, I believe this is an artifact of the group's > >>> > >> decision > >> > >>> to separate the update of the matching text from 3066 into a new > >>> > >> document so > >> > >>> that both ltru-registry and ltru-matching will obsolete 3066. I = know > >>> > >> that's > >> > >>> not what everyone in the group wanted, but it was identified as an > issue > >>> during IETF last call and the IESG thought it significant. > >>> > >>> The queue doesn't provide any info about publication dates. Based = on > >>> > >> the > >> > >>> status, though, you guys and gals had better get the matching = document > >>> finished if you want it to move. > >>> > >>> -Scott- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ltru mailing list > >> Ltru@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 14:57:53 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6CUj-0008Lh-Dg; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:57:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6CUg-0008Kk-H6; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:57:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17104; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 14:56:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6Cgm-00023j-70; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:10:22 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k16JsiSr014889; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:54:44 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=v9R4CTl2KfwId/5zOPTWLp3x64bEKrOsUxCTiAY941JFO4HQCZx8hJ4MpiRVsPBD From: "Addison Phillips" To: Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:56:31 -0800 Message-ID: <000801c62b57$6cc13bb0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C62B14.5E9DFBB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcYrV2yAXvFTIAkNSlmXeVy2zo3W0A== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f6622de0bbe2524780cc4e65db358ddf Cc: ltru@ietf.org Subject: [Ltru] submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C62B14.5E9DFBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Editor, Please find attached draft #9 of draft-ietf-ltru-matching in text = format. Fenner's ABNF validator and idnits both ran clean against it. Addison (for the editors) Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C62B14.5E9DFBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed.=0A= Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc=0A= Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved) M. Davis, Ed.=0A= Expires: August 10, 2005 Google=0A= February 6, 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Matching of Language Tags=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09=0A= =0A= Status of this Memo=0A= =0A= By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any=0A= applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware=0A= have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes=0A= aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering=0A= Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that=0A= other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-=0A= Drafts.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months=0A= and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any=0A= time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference=0A= material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."=0A= =0A= The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.=0A= =0A= The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.=0A= =0A= This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2005.=0A= =0A= Copyright Notice=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).=0A= =0A= Abstract=0A= =0A= This document describes different mechanisms for comparing, matching,=0A= and evaluating language tags. Possible algorithms for language=0A= negotiation or content selection, filtering, and lookup are=0A= described. This document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (replace=0A= "3066bis" with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC=0A= 1766.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 1]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Table of Contents=0A= =0A= 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=0A= 2. The Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5=0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7=0A= 3. Types of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.2. Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9=0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.3. Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15=0A= 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . 20=0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 21=0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 22=0A= 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24=0A= 6. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25=0A= 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26=0A= 8. Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27=0A= 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29=0A= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30=0A= Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 2]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 1. Introduction=0A= =0A= Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of=0A= languages. There are many reasons why one would want to identify the=0A= language used when presenting or requesting information.=0A= =0A= Information about a user's language preferences commonly needs to be=0A= identified so that appropriate processing can be applied. For=0A= example, the user's language preferences in a browser can be used to=0A= select web pages appropriately. Language preferences can also be=0A= used to select among tools (such as dictionaries) to assist in the=0A= processing or understanding of content in different languages.=0A= =0A= Given a set of language identifiers, such as those defined in=0A= [RFC3066bis], various mechanisms can be envisioned for performing=0A= language negotiation and tag matching.=0A= =0A= This document defines a syntax (called a language range (Section 2))=0A= for specifying a user's language preferences, as well as several=0A= schemes for selecting or filtering content by comparing language=0A= ranges to the language tags [RFC3066bis] used to identify the natural=0A= language of that content. Applications, protocols, or specifications=0A= will have varying needs and requirements that affect the choice of a=0A= suitable matching scheme. Depending on the choice of scheme, there=0A= are various options left to the implementation. Protocols that=0A= implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular=0A= choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to=0A= decide.=0A= =0A= This document is divided into three main sections. One describes how=0A= to indicate a user's preferences using language ranges. Then a=0A= section describes various schemes for matching these ranges to a set=0A= of language tags in order to select specific content. There is also=0A= a section that deals with various practical considerations that apply=0A= to implementing and using these schemes.=0A= =0A= This document, in combination with [RFC3066bis] (Ed.: replace=0A= "3066bis" globally in this document with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces [RFC3066], which replaced=0A= [RFC1766].=0A= =0A= The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=0A= "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this=0A= document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 3]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 2. The Language Range=0A= =0A= Language Tags [RFC3066bis] are used to identify the language of some=0A= information item or content. Applications or protocols that use=0A= language tags are often faced with the problem of identifying sets of=0A= content that share certain language attributes. For example,=0A= HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] describes one such mechanism in its discussion of=0A= the Accept-Language header (Section 14.4), which is used when=0A= selecting content from servers based on the language of that content.=0A= =0A= When selecting content according to its language, it is useful to=0A= have a mechanism for identifying sets of language tags that share=0A= specific attributes. This allows users to select or filter content=0A= based on specific requirements. Such an identifier is called a=0A= "Language Range".=0A= =0A= Language ranges are similar in structure and content to language=0A= tags: they consist of alphanumeric "subtags" separated by hyphens,=0A= plus a special subtag consisting of the character "*" (%2A,=0A= ASTERISK), which is used in ranges as a "wildcard", that is, a value=0A= that matches any subtag.=0A= =0A= Language tags and thus language ranges are to be treated as case-=0A= insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some=0A= of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning.=0A= Matching of language tags to language ranges MUST be done in a case-=0A= insensitive manner as well.=0A= =0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range=0A= =0A= A "basic language range" identifies the set of content whose language=0A= tags begin with the same sequence of subtags. Each range consists of=0A= a sequence of alphanumeric subtags separated by hyphens. The basic=0A= language range is defined by the following ABNF[RFC4234]:=0A= =0A= language-range =3D language-tag / "*"=0A= language-tag =3D 1*8[alphanum] *["-" 1*8alphanum]=0A= alphanum =3D ALPHA / DIGIT=0A= =0A= Basic language ranges (originally described by HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] and=0A= later [RFC3066]) have the same syntax as an [RFC3066] language tag or=0A= are the single character "*". They differ from the language tags=0A= defined in [RFC3066bis] only in that there is no requirement that=0A= they be "well-formed" or be validated against the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (although such ill-formed ranges will probably not=0A= match anything).=0A= =0A= Use of a basic language range seems to imply that there is a semantic=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 4]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= relationship between language tags that share the same prefix. While=0A= this is often the case, it is not always true and users should note=0A= that the set of language tags that match a specific language-range=0A= may not be mutually intelligible.=0A= =0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range=0A= =0A= A Basic Language Range does not always provide the most appropriate=0A= way to specify a user's preferences. Sometimes it is beneficial to=0A= use a more fine-grained matching scheme that takes advantage of the=0A= internal structure of language tags. This allows the user to=0A= specify, for example, the value of a specific field in a language tag=0A= or to indicate which values are of interest in filtering or selecting=0A= the content.=0A= =0A= In an extended language range, the identifier takes the form of a=0A= series of subtags which MUST consist of well-formed subtags or the=0A= special subtag "*". For example, the language range "en-*-US"=0A= specifies a primary language of 'en', followed by any script subtag,=0A= followed by the region subtag 'US'.=0A= =0A= An extended language range can be represented by the following ABNF:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 5]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= extended-language-range =3D range ; a range=0A= / privateuse ; a private-use range=0A= / grandfathered ; a grandfathered registration=0A= =0A= range =3D (language=0A= ["-" script]=0A= ["-" region]=0A= *("-" variant)=0A= *("-" extension)=0A= ["-" privateuse])=0A= =0A= language =3D (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code=0A= / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use=0A= / 5*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extlang =3D *2("-" 3ALPHA) ("-" ( 3ALPHA / "*"))=0A= ; reserved for future use=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= script =3D 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= region =3D 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code=0A= / 3DIGIT ; UN M.49 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= variant =3D 5*8alphanum ; registered variants=0A= / (DIGIT 3alphanum) ;=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extension =3D singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ]=0A= ; extension subtags=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= singleton =3D %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT=0A= ; single letters (except for "x") or digits=0A= =0A= privateuse =3D "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))=0A= =0A= grandfathered =3D 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))=0A= ; grandfathered registration=0A= ; Note: I is the only singleton=0A= ; that starts a grandfathered tag=0A= =0A= alphanum =3D (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 6]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= A field not present in the middle of an extended language range is=0A= treated as if the field contained a "*". Implementations that=0A= normalize extended language ranges SHOULD expand missing fields to be=0A= "*" so that the semantic meaning of the language range is clear to=0A= the user. At the same time, multiple wildcards in a row are=0A= redundant and implementations SHOULD collapse these to a single=0A= wildcard when normalizing the range (for brevity). For example, both=0A= the range "sl-nedis" and the range "sl-*-*-nedis" are equivalent to=0A= and should be normalized as "sl-*-nedis".=0A= =0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List=0A= =0A= When users specify a language preference they often need to specify a=0A= prioritized list of language ranges in order to best reflect their=0A= language preferences. This is especially true for speakers of=0A= minority languages. A speaker of Breton in France, for example, may=0A= specify "be" followed by "fr", meaning that if Breton is available,=0A= it is preferred, but otherwise French is the best alternative. It=0A= can get more complex: a speaker may wish to fall back from Skolt Sami=0A= to Northern Sami to Finnish.=0A= =0A= A "Language Priority List" is a prioritized or weighted list of=0A= language ranges. One well known example of such a list is the=0A= "Accept-Language" header defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616] (see Section=0A= 14.4) and RFC 3282 [RFC3282]. A simple list of ranges, i.e. one that=0A= contains no weighting information, is considered to be in descending=0A= order of priority.=0A= =0A= The various matching operations described in this document include=0A= considerations for using a language priority list. This document=0A= does not define any syntax for a language priority list; defining=0A= such a syntax is the responsibility of the protocol, application, or=0A= implementation that uses it. When given as examples in this=0A= document, language priority lists will be shown as a quoted sequence=0A= of ranges separated by semi-colons, like this: "en; fr; zh-Hant"=0A= (which would be read as "English before French before Chinese as=0A= written in the Traditional script").=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 7]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 3. Types of Matching=0A= =0A= Matching language ranges to language tags can be done in a number of=0A= different ways. This section describes several different matching=0A= schemes, as well as the considerations for choosing between them.=0A= Protocols and specifications SHOULD clearly indicate the particular=0A= mechanism used in selecting or matching language tags.=0A= =0A= There are two basic types of matching scheme: those that produce zero=0A= or more information items (called "filtering") and those that produce=0A= a single information item for a given request (called "lookup").=0A= =0A= A key difference between these two types of matching scheme is that=0A= the language ranges in the language priority list represent the=0A= _least_ specific content one will accept as a match, while for lookup=0A= operations the language ranges represent the _most_ specific content.=0A= =0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching=0A= =0A= Applications, protocols, and specifications are faced with the=0A= decision of what type of matching to use. Sometimes, different=0A= styles of matching might be suited for different kinds of processing=0A= within a particular application or protocol.=0A= =0A= Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a=0A= complete procedure for the use of language tags. Such procedures are=0A= intimately tied to the application protocol in which they occur.=0A= When specifying a protocol operation using matching, the protocol=0A= MUST specify:=0A= =0A= o Which type(s) of language tag matching it uses=0A= =0A= o Whether the operation returns a single result (lookup) or a=0A= possibly empty set of results (filtering)=0A= =0A= o For lookup, what the result is when no matching tag is found. For=0A= instance, a protocol might result in failure of the operation, an=0A= empty value, returning some protocol defined or implementation=0A= defined default, or returning i-default [RFC2277].=0A= =0A= Filtering can be used to produce a set of results (such as a=0A= collection of documents). For example, if using a search engine, one=0A= might use filtering to limit the results to documents written in=0A= French. It can also be used when deciding whether to perform a=0A= language-sensitive process on some content. For example, a process=0A= might cause paragraphs whose language tag matched the language range=0A= "nl" to be displayed in italics within a document.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 8]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= This document describes four types of matching (three types of=0A= filtering, plus the lookup scheme):=0A= =0A= 1. Basic Filtering (Section 3.2.1) is used to match content using=0A= basic language ranges (Section 2.1).=0A= =0A= 2. Extended Range Filtering (Section 3.2.2) is used to match content=0A= using extended language ranges (Section 2.2).=0A= =0A= 3. Scored Filtering (Section 3.2.3) produces an ordered set of=0A= content using extended language ranges. It SHOULD be used when=0A= the quality of the match within a specific language range is=0A= important, as when presenting a list of documents resulting from=0A= a search.=0A= =0A= 4. Lookup (Section 3.3) is used when each request needs to produce=0A= _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if a process were=0A= to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header,=0A= it might select the text based on the user's language preference.=0A= Since it can return only one item, it must choose a single item=0A= and it must return some item, even if no content matches the=0A= language priority list supplied by the user.=0A= =0A= Most types of matching in this document are designed so that=0A= implementations are not required to validate or understand any of the=0A= semantics of the subtags supplied and, except for scored filtering,=0A= they do not need access to the IANA Language Subtag Registry (see=0A= Section 3 in [RFC3066bis]). This simplifies and speeds the=0A= performance of implementations.=0A= =0A= Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and=0A= implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping=0A= grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents.=0A= If an implementation canonicalizes either ranges or tags, then the=0A= implementation will require the IANA Language Subtag Registry=0A= information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic=0A= information external to the registry when matching tags. For=0A= example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and=0A= 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more=0A= general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer=0A= that content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh-=0A= Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW".=0A= =0A= 3.2. Filtering=0A= =0A= Filtering is used to select the set of content that matches a given=0A= language priority list. It is called "filtering" because this set of=0A= content may contain no items at all or it may return an arbitrarily=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 9]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= large number of matching items: as many items as match the language=0A= priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items.=0A= =0A= In filtering, the language range represents the _least_ specific=0A= (that is, the fewest number of subtags) language tag which is an=0A= acceptable match. That is, all of the language tags in the set of=0A= filtered content will have an equal or greater number of subtags than=0A= the language range. For example, if the language priority list=0A= consists of the range "de-CH", one might see matching content with=0A= the tag "de-CH-1996" but one will never see a match with the tag=0A= "de".=0A= =0A= If the language priority list (see Section 2.3) contains more than=0A= one range, the content returned is typically ordered in descending=0A= level of preference.=0A= =0A= Some examples where filtering might be appropriate include:=0A= =0A= o Applying a style to sections of a document in a particular set of=0A= languages.=0A= =0A= o Displaying the set of documents containing a particular set of=0A= keywords written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= o Selecting all email items written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= Filtering can produce either an ordered or an unordered set of=0A= results. For example, applying formatting to a document based on the=0A= language of specific pieces of content does not require the content=0A= to be ordered. It is sufficient to know whether a specific piece of=0A= content is selected by the language priority list (or not). A search=0A= application, on the other hand, probably would want to order the=0A= results.=0A= =0A= If an ordered set is desired, as described above, then the=0A= application or protocol needs to determine the relative "quality" of=0A= the match between different language tags and the language range.=0A= =0A= This measurement is called a "distance metric". A distance metric=0A= assigns a numeric value to the comparison of a language tag to a=0A= language range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A=0A= distance of zero means that they are identical, a small distance=0A= indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indicates=0A= that they are very different. Using a distance metric,=0A= implementations can, for example, allow users to select a threshold=0A= distance for a match to be "successful" while filtering, or they=0A= might use the numeric values to order the results.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 10]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using basic language ranges, each basic language range=0A= in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to=0A= priority. A particular language tag matches a language range if it=0A= exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag=0A= such that the first character following the prefix is "-". (That is,=0A= the language-range "de-de" matches the language tag "de-DE-1996", but=0A= not the language tag "de-Deva".)=0A= =0A= The special range "*" in a language priority list matches any tag. A=0A= protocol which uses language ranges MAY specify additional rules=0A= about the semantics of "*"; for instance, HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616]=0A= specifies that the range "*" matches only languages not matched by=0A= any other range within an "Accept-Language" header.=0A= =0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using extended language ranges, each extended language=0A= range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according=0A= to priority. The subtags in each extended language range are=0A= compared to the corresponding subtags in the language tag being=0A= examined. The subtag from the range is considered to match if it=0A= exactly matches the corresponding subtag in the tag or the range's=0A= subtag has the value "*" (which matches all subtags, including the=0A= empty subtag).=0A= =0A= Subtags not specified, including those at the end of the language=0A= range, are assigned the wildcard value "*". This makes each range=0A= into a prefix much like that used in basic language range matching.=0A= For example, the extended language range "de-*-DE" matches all of the=0A= following tags, in part because the unspecified variant, extension,=0A= and private-use subtags are expanded to "*":=0A= =0A= de-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latf-DE=0A= =0A= de-DE-x-goethe=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE-1996=0A= =0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering=0A= =0A= Both basic and extended language range filtering produce simple=0A= boolean matches between a language range and a language tag.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 11]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Sometimes it may be useful to provide an array of results with=0A= different levels of matching, for example, sorting results based on=0A= the overall "quality" of the match. Scored (or "distance metric")=0A= filtering provides a way to generate these quality values.=0A= =0A= As with the other forms of filtering, the process considers each=0A= language range in the language priority list in order of priority.=0A= =0A= Each extended language range and language tag MUST first be=0A= canonicalized by mapping grandfathered and obsolete tags into modern=0A= equivalents. This requires the information in the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (see Section 3 of [RFC3066bis]).=0A= =0A= The language range and each language tag it is to be compared to are=0A= then transformed into a "quintuple" consisting of five "elements" in=0A= the form (language, script, country, variant, extension).=0A= =0A= Any extended language subtags are considered part of the language=0A= "element". For example, the language element for the tag "zh-cmn-=0A= Hans" would be "zh-cmn".=0A= =0A= Private-use subtag sequences are considered part of the language=0A= "element" if in the initial position in the tag and part of the=0A= variant "element" if not. The different handling of private-use=0A= sequences prevents a range such as "x-twain" from matching all=0A= possible tags, while a range such as "en-US-x-twain" would closely=0A= match nearly all tags for English as used in the United States.=0A= =0A= Language subtags 'und', 'mul', and the script subtag 'Zyyy' are=0A= converted to "*": these subtag values represent undetermined,=0A= multiple, or private-use values which are consistent with the use of=0A= the wildcard.=0A= =0A= For language tags that have no script subtag but whose language=0A= subtag's record in the IANA Language Subtag Registry contains the=0A= field "Suppress-Script", the script element in the quintuple MUST be=0A= set to the script subtag in the Suppress-Script field. This is=0A= necessary because [RFC3066bis] strongly recommends that users not use=0A= this subtag to form language tags and this document (see Section 4.1)=0A= recommends that users not use them to form ranges. Languages which=0A= have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are predominantly=0A= written in that single script, making the subtag redundant in forming=0A= a language tag or range. Thus if the script were not expanded in=0A= this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a more-distant=0A= score for content that happened to be labeled "de-Latn-DE" than users=0A= would expect that it should.=0A= =0A= Any remaining missing components in the language tag are set to "*";=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 12]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= thus an empty language tag becomes the quintuple ("*", "*", "*", "*",=0A= "*"). Missing components in the language range are handled similarly=0A= to extended range lookup: missing internal subtags are expanded to=0A= "*". Missing end subtags are expanded as the empty string. Thus a=0A= pattern "en-US" becomes the quintuple ("en","*","US","","").=0A= =0A= Here are some examples of language tags, showing their quintuples as=0A= both language tags and language ranges:=0A= =0A= en-US=0A= Tag: (en, *, US, *, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, US, "", "")=0A= =0A= sr-Latn=0A= Tag: (sr, Latn, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (sr, Latn, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= zh-cmn-Hant=0A= Tag: (zh-cmn, Hant, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (zh-cmn, Hant, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= x-foo=0A= Tag: (x-foo, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (x-foo, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= en-x-foo=0A= Tag: (en, *, *, x-foo, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, *, x-foo, "")=0A= =0A= i-default=0A= Tag: (i-default, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (i-default, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= sl-Latn-IT-rozaj=0A= Tag: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, *)=0A= Range: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, "")=0A= =0A= zh-r-wadegile (hypothetical)=0A= Tag: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= Range: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= =0A= Figure 3: Examples of Distance Metric Quintuples=0A= =0A= Each pair of quintuples being compared is assigned a distance value,=0A= in which small values indicate better matches and large values=0A= indicate worse ones. The distance between the pair is the sum of the=0A= distances for each of the corresponding elements of the quintuple.=0A= If the elements are identical or one is '*', then the distance value=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 13]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= between them is zero. Otherwise, it is given by the following table:=0A= 256 language mismatch=0A= 128 script mismatch=0A= 32 region mismatch=0A= 4 variant mismatch=0A= 1 extension mismatch=0A= =0A= A value of 0 is a perfect match; 421 is no match at all. Different=0A= threshold values might be appropriate for different applications or=0A= protocols. Implementations will usually allow users to choose the=0A= most appropriate selection value, ranking the matched items based on=0A= score.=0A= =0A= Examples of various tag's distances from the range "en-US":=0A= =0A= "fr-FR" 384 (language & region mismatch)=0A= "fr" 256 (language mismatch, region match)=0A= "en-GB" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-Latn-US" 0 (all fields match)=0A= "en-Brai" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-US-x-foo" 4 (variant mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= "en-US-r-wadegile" 1 (extension mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list follows the syntax of the "Accept-=0A= Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and=0A= [RFC3282], language ranges without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language range in the list (processing=0A= from first to last). If the first language range has no Q value, it=0A= is given a value of 1.0. Language ranges with Q values of zero are=0A= removed. For example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes=0A= "fr;q=3D1.0,en;q=3D0.5,de;q=3D0.5,it;q=3D0.5". The distance values = given=0A= above are then divided by the Q values. For example, if that=0A= language tag "fr-FR" has a distance of 384 from a language range with=0A= a Q value of 0.8, then the resulting distance is 480 (384 div 0.8).=0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different weighting systems than=0A= the ones described above, as long as the weightings and weighting=0A= mechanisms are clearly specified. Thus, for example, an=0A= implementation or protocol could give all language tags with missing=0A= Q values a value of 1.0, or give the distance value 1000 to a=0A= language mismatch. They MAY also use more sophisticated weights that=0A= depend on the values of the corresponding elements. For example, an=0A= implementation might give a small distance to the difference closely=0A= related subtags. Some examples of closely related subtags might be:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 14]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Language:=0A= no (Norwegian)=0A= nb (Bokmal Norwegian)=0A= nn (Nynorsk Norwegian)=0A= =0A= Script:=0A= Kata (katakana)=0A= Hira (hiragana)=0A= =0A= Region:=0A= US (United States of America)=0A= UM (United States Minor Outlying Islands)=0A= =0A= Figure 6: Examples of Closely Related Subtags=0A= =0A= 3.3. Lookup=0A= =0A= Lookup is used to select the single information item that best=0A= matches the language priority list for a given request. When=0A= performing lookup, each language range in the language priority list=0A= is considered in turn, according to priority. By contrast with=0A= filtering, each language ranges represents the _most_ specific tag=0A= which is an acceptable match. The first information item found with=0A= a matching tag, according the user's priority, is considered the=0A= closest match and is the item returned. For example, if the language=0A= range is "de-CH", one might expect to receive an information item=0A= with the tag "de" but never one with the tag "de-CH-1996". Usually=0A= if no content matches the request, a "default" item is returned.=0A= =0A= For example, if an application inserts some dynamic content into a=0A= document, returning an empty string if there is no exact match is not=0A= an option. Instead, the application "falls back" until it finds a=0A= suitable piece of content to insert. Other examples of lookup might=0A= include:=0A= =0A= o Selection of a template containing the text for an automated email=0A= response.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a item containing some text for inclusion in a=0A= particular Web page.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a string of text for inclusion in an error log.=0A= =0A= In the lookup scheme, the language range is progressively truncated=0A= from the end until a matching piece of content is located. For=0A= example, starting with the range "zh-Hant-CN-x-private", the lookup=0A= progressively searches for content as shown below:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 15]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Range to match: zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 1. zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 2. zh-Hant-CN=0A= 3. zh-Hant=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (default content or the empty tag)=0A= =0A= Figure 7: Example of a Lookup Fallback Pattern=0A= =0A= This scheme allows some flexibility in finding content. For example,=0A= it provides better results for cases in which data is not available=0A= that exactly matches the user request than if the default language=0A= for the system or content were returned immediately. Not every=0A= specific level of tag granularity is usually available or language=0A= content may be sparsely populated, so "falling back" through the=0A= subtag sequence provides more opportunity to find a match between=0A= available content and the user's request.=0A= =0A= The default content is implementation defined. It might be content=0A= with no language tag; might have an empty value (the built-in=0A= attribute xml:lang in [XML10] permits the empty value); might be a=0A= particular language designated for that bit of content; or it might=0A= be content that is labeled with the tag "i-default" (see [RFC2277]).=0A= When performing lookup using a language priority list, the=0A= progressive search MUST proceed to consider each language range in=0A= the list before finding the default content or empty tag.=0A= =0A= One common way for an application or implementation to provide for=0A= default content is to allow a specific language range to be set as=0A= the default for a specific type of request. This language range is=0A= then treated as if it were appended to the end of the language=0A= priority list as a whole, rather than after each item in the language=0A= priority list.=0A= =0A= For example, if a particular user's language priority list were=0A= "fr-FR; zh-Hant" and the program doing the matching had a default=0A= language range of "ja-JP", the program would search for content as=0A= follows:=0A= 1. fr-FR=0A= 2. fr=0A= 3. zh-Hant // next language=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (search for the default content)=0A= a. ja-JP=0A= b. ja=0A= c. (implementation defined default)=0A= =0A= Figure 8: Lookup Using a Language Priority List=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 16]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations SHOULD ignore extensions and unrecognized private-use=0A= subtags when performing lookup, since these subtags are usually=0A= orthogonal to the user's request.=0A= =0A= The special language range "*" matches any language tag. In the=0A= lookup scheme, this range does not convey enough information by=0A= itself to determine which content is most appropriate, since it=0A= matches everything. If the language range "*" is the only one in the=0A= language priority list, it matches the default content. If the=0A= language range "*" is followed by other language ranges, it should be=0A= skipped.=0A= =0A= In some cases, the language priority list might contain one or more=0A= extended language ranges (as, for example, when the same language=0A= priority list is used as input for both lookup and filtering=0A= operations). Wildcard values in an extended language range normally=0A= match any value that occurs in that position in a language tag.=0A= Since only one item can be returned for any given lookup request,=0A= wildcards in a language range have to be processed in a consistent=0A= manner or the same request will produce widely varying results.=0A= Implementations that accept extended language ranges MUST define=0A= which content is returned when more than one item matches the=0A= extended language range.=0A= =0A= For example, an implementation could return the matching content that=0A= is first in ASCII-order. For example, if the language range were=0A= "*-CH" and the set of content included "de-CH", "fr-CH", and "it-CH",=0A= then the content labeled "de-CH" would be returned.=0A= =0A= Implementations MAY also map extended language ranges to basic=0A= language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range=0A= is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each=0A= wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were=0A= "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US".=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list contains Q values as in the syntax of=0A= the "Accept-Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4)=0A= and [RFC3282], language tags without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language tag (processing from first to=0A= last). If the first language tag has no Q value, it is given a value=0A= of 1.0. Then language tags with zero Q values are removed. For=0A= example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=3D1.0, en;q=3D0.5,=0A= de;q=3D0.5, it;q=3D0.5". The language priority list is then sorted = from=0A= highest priority to lowest, whereby any two language tags with the=0A= same Q values are remain in the same order as in the original=0A= language priority list. This list is then traversed as described=0A= above in doing lookup.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 17]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different lookup mechanisms=0A= systems than the ones described above, as long as those mechanisms=0A= are clearly specified.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 18]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 4. Other Considerations=0A= =0A= When working with language ranges and matching schemes, there are=0A= some additional points that may influence the choice of either.=0A= =0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges=0A= =0A= Users indicate their language preferences via the choice of a=0A= language range or the list of language ranges in a language priority=0A= list. The type of matching affects what the best choice is for a=0A= given user.=0A= =0A= Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning=0A= of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually=0A= compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being=0A= matched, using basic string processing.=0A= =0A= Users SHOULD avoid subtags that add no distinguishing value to a=0A= language range. Generally, the fewer subtags that appear in the=0A= language range, the more content the range will match.=0A= =0A= Most notably, script subtags SHOULD NOT be used to form a language=0A= range in combination with language subtags that have a matching=0A= Suppress-Script field in their registry entry. Thus the language=0A= range "en-Latn" is probably inappropriate in most cases (because the=0A= vast majority of English documents are written in the Latin script=0A= and thus the 'en' language subtag has a Suppress-Script field for=0A= 'Latn' in the registry).=0A= =0A= When working with tags and ranges, note that extensions and most=0A= private-use subtags are orthogonal to language tag matching, in that=0A= they specify additional attributes of the text not related to the=0A= goals of most matching schemes. Users SHOULD avoid using these=0A= subtags in language ranges, since they interfere with the selection=0A= of available content. When used in language tags (as opposed to=0A= ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering=0A= (Section 3), since they appear at the end of the tag and will match=0A= all prefixes.=0A= =0A= When working with language tags and language ranges note that:=0A= =0A= o Private-use and Extension subtags are normally orthogonal to=0A= language tag fallback. Implementations or specifications that use=0A= a lookup (Section 3.3) matching scheme often ignore unrecognized=0A= private-use and extension subtags when performing language tag=0A= fallback. In addition, since these subtags are always at the end=0A= of the sequence of subtags, their use in language tags normally=0A= doesn't interfere with the use of ranges that omit them in the=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 19]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= filtering (Section 3.2) matching schemes described below.=0A= However, they do interfere with filtering when used in language=0A= ranges and SHOULD be avoided in ranges as a result.=0A= =0A= o Applications, specifications, or protocols that choose not to=0A= interpret one or more private-use or extension subtags SHOULD NOT=0A= remove or modify these extensions in content that they are=0A= processing. When a language tag instance is to be used in a=0A= specific, known protocol, and is not being passed through to other=0A= protocols, language tags MAY be filtered to remove subtags and=0A= extensions that are not supported by that protocol. Such=0A= filtering SHOULD be avoided, if possible, since it removes=0A= information that might be relevant to services on the other end of=0A= the protocol that would make use of that information.=0A= =0A= o Some applications of language tags might want or need to consider=0A= extensions and private-use subtags when matching tags. If=0A= extensions and private-use subtags are included in a matching or=0A= filtering process that utilizes one of the schemes described in=0A= this document, then the implementation SHOULD canonicalize the=0A= language tags and/or ranges before performing the matching. Note=0A= that language tag processors that claim to be "well-formed"=0A= processors as defined in [RFC3066bis] generally fall into this=0A= category.=0A= =0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges=0A= =0A= Selecting content using language ranges requires some understanding=0A= by users of what they are selecting. A language tag or range=0A= identifies a language as spoken (or written, signed or otherwise=0A= signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other=0A= human beings.=0A= =0A= If a language tag B contains language tag A as a prefix, then B is=0A= typically "narrower" or "more specific" than A. For example, "zh-=0A= Hant-TW" is more specific than "zh-Hant".=0A= =0A= This relationship is not guaranteed in all cases: specifically,=0A= languages that begin with the same sequence of subtags are NOT=0A= guaranteed to be mutually intelligible, although they might be.=0A= =0A= For example, the tag "az" shares a prefix with both "az-Latn"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Latin script) and "az-Arab"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Arabic script). A person fluent in=0A= one script might not be able to read the other, even though the text=0A= might be otherwise identical. Content tagged as "az" most probably=0A= is written in just one script and thus might not be intelligible to a=0A= reader familiar with the other script.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 20]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Variant subtags in particular seem to represent specific divisions in=0A= mutual understanding, since they often encode dialects or other=0A= idiosyncratic variations within a language. They also seem to=0A= represent relatively low divisions with a high chance of at least=0A= limited understanding, although this depends on the specific variant=0A= in question.=0A= =0A= The relationship between the language tag and the information it=0A= relates to is defined by the standard describing the context in which=0A= it appears. Accordingly, this section can only give possible=0A= examples of its usage:=0A= =0A= o For a single information object, the associated language tags=0A= might be interpreted as the set of languages that are necessary=0A= for a complete comprehension of the complete object. Example:=0A= Plain text documents.=0A= =0A= o For an aggregation of information objects, the associated language=0A= tags could be taken as the set of languages used inside components=0A= of that aggregation. Examples: Document stores and libraries.=0A= =0A= o For information objects whose purpose is to provide alternatives,=0A= the associated language tags could be regarded as a hint that the=0A= content is provided in several languages, and that one has to=0A= inspect each of the alternatives in order to find its language or=0A= languages. In this case, the presence of multiple tags might not=0A= mean that one needs to be multi-lingual to get complete=0A= understanding of the document. Example: MIME multipart/=0A= alternative.=0A= =0A= o In markup languages, such as HTML and XML, language information=0A= can be added to each part of the document identified by the markup=0A= structure (including the whole document itself). For example, one=0A= could write C'est la vie. inside a=0A= Norwegian document; the Norwegian-speaking user could then access=0A= a French-Norwegian dictionary to find out what the marked section=0A= meant. If the user were listening to that document through a=0A= speech synthesis interface, this formation could be used to signal=0A= the synthesizer to appropriately apply French text-to-speech=0A= pronunciation rules to that span of text, instead of misapplying=0A= the Norwegian rules.=0A= =0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags=0A= =0A= Private-use subtags require private agreement between the parties=0A= that intend to use or exchange language tags that use them and great=0A= caution SHOULD be used in employing them in content or protocols=0A= intended for general use. Private-use subtags are simply useless for=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 21]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= information exchange without prior arrangement.=0A= =0A= The value and semantic meaning of private-use tags and of the subtags=0A= used within such a language tag are not defined. Matching private-=0A= use tags using language ranges or extended language ranges can result=0A= in unpredictable content being returned.=0A= =0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching=0A= =0A= RFC 3066 [RFC3066] did not provide an upper limit on the size of=0A= language tags or ranges. RFC 3066 did define the semantics of=0A= particular subtags in such a way that most language tags or ranges=0A= consisted of language and region subtags with a combined total length=0A= of up to six characters. Larger tags and ranges (in terms of both=0A= subtags and characters) did exist, however.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis] also does not impose a fixed upper limit on the number=0A= of subtags in a language tag or range (and thus an upper bound on the=0A= size of either). The syntax in that document suggests that,=0A= depending on the specific language or range of languages, more=0A= subtags (and thus characters) are sometimes necessary as a result.=0A= Length considerations and their impact on the selection and=0A= processing of tags are described in Section 2.1.1 of that document.=0A= =0A= An application or protocol MAY choose to limit the length of the=0A= language tags or ranges used in matching. Any such limitation SHOULD=0A= be clearly documented, and such documentation SHOULD include the=0A= disposition of any longer tags or ranges (for example, whether an=0A= error value is generated or the language tag or range is truncated).=0A= If truncation is permitted it MUST NOT permit a subtag to be divided,=0A= since this changes the semantics of the subtag being matched and can=0A= result in false positives or negatives.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols that restrict storage SHOULD consider the=0A= impact of tag or range truncation on the resulting matches. For=0A= example, removing the "*" from the end of an extended language range=0A= (see Section 2.2) can greatly modify the set of returned matches. A=0A= protocol that allows tags or ranges to be truncated at an arbitrary=0A= limit, without giving any indication of what that limit is, has the=0A= potential for causing harm by changing the meaning of values in=0A= substantial ways.=0A= =0A= In practice, most tags do not require additional subtags or=0A= substantially more characters. Additional subtags sometimes add=0A= useful distinguishing information, but extraneous subtags interfere=0A= with the meaning, understanding, and especially matching of language=0A= tags. Since language tags or ranges MAY be truncated by an=0A= application or protocol that limits storage, when choosing language=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 22]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= tags or ranges users and applications SHOULD avoid adding subtags=0A= that add no distinguishing value. In particular, users and=0A= implementations SHOULD follow the 'Prefix' and 'Suppress-Script'=0A= fields in the registry (defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC3066bis]):=0A= these fields provide guidance on when specific additional subtags=0A= SHOULD (and SHOULD NOT) be used.=0A= =0A= Implementations MUST support a limit of at least 33 characters. This=0A= limit includes at least one subtag of each non-extension, non-private=0A= use type. When choosing a buffer limit, a length of at least 42=0A= characters is strongly RECOMMENDED.=0A= =0A= The practical limit on tags or ranges derived solely from registered=0A= values is 42 characters. Implementations MUST be able to handle tags=0A= and ranges of this length. Support for tags and ranges of at least=0A= 62 characters in length is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MAY support=0A= longer values, including matching extensive sets of private-use or=0A= extension subtags.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols which have to truncate a tag MUST do so by=0A= progressively removing subtags along with their preceding "-" from=0A= the right side of the language tag until the tag is short enough for=0A= the given buffer. If the resulting tag ends with a single-character=0A= subtag, that subtag and its preceding "-" MUST also be removed. For=0A= example:=0A= =0A= Tag to truncate: zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1=0A= 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile=0A= 2. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1=0A= 3. zh-Latn-CN-variant1=0A= 4. zh-Latn-CN=0A= 5. zh-Latn=0A= 6. zh=0A= =0A= Figure 9: Example of Tag Truncation=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 23]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 5. IANA Considerations=0A= =0A= This document presents no new or existing considerations for IANA.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 24]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 6. Changes=0A= =0A= This is the first version of this document.=0A= =0A= The following changes were put into this document since draft-07:=0A= =0A= Added a mention of "*" to the Character Set Considerations section=0A= (D.Ewell)=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 25]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 7. Security Considerations=0A= =0A= Language ranges used in content negotiation might be used to infer=0A= the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential targets=0A= for surveillance. In addition, unique or highly unusual language=0A= ranges or combinations of language ranges might be used to track a=0A= specific individual's activities.=0A= =0A= This is a special case of the general problem that anything you send=0A= is visible to the receiving party. It is useful to be aware that=0A= such concerns can exist in some cases.=0A= =0A= The evaluation of the exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible=0A= countermeasures, is left to each application or protocol.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 26]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 8. Character Set Considerations=0A= =0A= Language tags permit only the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and HYPHEN-=0A= MINUS (%x2D). Language ranges also use the character ASTERISK=0A= (%x2A). These characters are present in most character sets, so=0A= presentation or exchange of language tags or ranges should not be=0A= constrained by character set issues.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 27]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 9. References=0A= =0A= 9.1. Normative References=0A= =0A= [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate=0A= Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.=0A= =0A= [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and=0A= Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis]=0A= Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for the=0A= Identification of Languages", October 2005, .=0A= =0A= [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax=0A= Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.=0A= =0A= 9.2. Informative References=0A= =0A= [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.=0A= =0A= [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,=0A= Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext=0A= Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.=0A= =0A= [RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282,=0A= May 2002.=0A= =0A= [XML10] Bray (et al), T., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0",=0A= 02 2004.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 28]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements=0A= =0A= Any list of contributors is bound to be incomplete; please regard the=0A= following as only a selection from the group of people who have=0A= contributed to make this document what it is today.=0A= =0A= The contributors to [RFC3066bis], [RFC3066] and [RFC1766], each of=0A= which is a precursor to this document, made enormous contributions=0A= directly or indirectly to this document and are generally responsible=0A= for the success of language tags.=0A= =0A= The following people (in alphabetical order by family name)=0A= contributed to this document:=0A= =0A= Harald Alvestrand, Jeremy Carroll, John Cowan, Martin Duerst, Frank=0A= Ellermann, Doug Ewell, Marion Gunn, Kent Karlsson, Ira McDonald, M.=0A= Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many,=0A= many others.=0A= =0A= Very special thanks must go to Harald Tveit Alvestrand, who=0A= originated RFCs 1766 and 3066, and without whom this document would=0A= not have been possible.=0A= =0A= For this particular document, John Cowan originated the scheme=0A= described in Section 3.2.3. Mark Davis originated the scheme=0A= described in the Section 3.3.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 29]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Authors' Addresses=0A= =0A= Addison Phillips (editor)=0A= Yahoo! Inc=0A= =0A= Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= Mark Davis (editor)=0A= Google=0A= =0A= Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 30]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Intellectual Property Statement=0A= =0A= The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any=0A= Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to=0A= pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in=0A= this document or the extent to which any license under such rights=0A= might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has=0A= made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information=0A= on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be=0A= found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any=0A= assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an=0A= attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of=0A= such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this=0A= specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ipr.=0A= =0A= The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any=0A= copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary=0A= rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement=0A= this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at=0A= ietf-ipr@ietf.org.=0A= =0A= =0A= Disclaimer of Validity=0A= =0A= This document and the information contained herein are provided on an=0A= "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS=0A= OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET=0A= ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,=0A= INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE=0A= INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED=0A= WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.=0A= =0A= =0A= Copyright Statement=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject=0A= to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and=0A= except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.=0A= =0A= =0A= Acknowledgment=0A= =0A= Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the=0A= Internet Society.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 31]=0A= =0C=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C62B14.5E9DFBB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C62B14.5E9DFBB0-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 15:12:48 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6CjA-00038R-04; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:12:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Cj9-00038K-NE for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:12:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18487 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net ([69.31.8.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6CvO-00031C-Lj for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:25:27 -0500 Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN sah, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:11:52 -0500 id 01588017.43E7AD88.00003C5D From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'r&d afrac'" , ltru@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 15:12:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060206193213.048a4620@mail.afrac.org> Thread-Index: AcYrT8JeAEUk2qqJR+mMbrTgGtxQnQACWvBg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: r&d afrac [mailto:rd@afrac.org] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 1:46 PM > To: Addison Phillips; 'Mark Davis'; ltru@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > > At 19:12 06/02/2006, Addison Phillips wrote: > >For starters we could submit my proto-draft-09 and edit from there. > >I didn't follow some of your thread in January (9 January, > >coincidentally, marked my first day at Yahoo!, so I was not paying > >attention for a couple of days). > > Congrats for your new employment! I mean it. > jfc > > PS. But this also means that the WG-LTRU counts one Unicode member > employee more. Also that both authors are Unicode members employees, > one on the solution side and one on the service side. Will you sign > as W3C or as Yahoo!? (I suggest you do as Mark and others and do not > use your company mail name). I only use mine because this way people > are informed I copy other members and that I specifically represent > the interests of a community. Please remember that there are no corporate "members" here. Employment status changes nothing and "representation" carries no weight as far as the IETF is concerned. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 16:14:39 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6Def-000791-Pb; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:12:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6DeZ-00074X-Jn for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:12:12 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28028 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 16:10:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F6Ddg-00006x-TP for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:11:13 +0100 Received: from 1cust182.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.16.182]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:11:12 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust182.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:11:12 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:09:19 +0100 Organization: Lines: 27 Message-ID: <43E7BAFF.331A@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <43E785EC.8060001@icu-project.org> <000001c62b48$f60a2ee0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20060206193213.048a4620@mail.afrac.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust182.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] OT: liaisons (was: Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry) X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org r&d afrac wrote: > this also means that the WG-LTRU counts one Unicode member > employee more. You're a personal member, so what ? Will it count against me that I only arranged for write-access on their "general" list some weks ago, but didn't use it so far ? > Will you sign as W3C or as Yahoo!? They'll use a working address, that's mainly relevant for the secretariat and later the RFC-editor. _Any_ working address will do, and _any_ organization they care to name is okay. > I only use mine because this way people are informed I copy > other members and that I specifically represent the interests > of a community. This isn't the case, you don't represent anybody but you here, otherwise you'd be listed on one of the "IETF liaison" pages: We've discussed the question of LTRU liaisons a year ago here. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 19:34:27 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6GoN-0005Op-Fr; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:34:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6GoK-0005KS-2M for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:34:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA28673 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6H0O-0005b0-5k for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:46:53 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F6Gnz-0005Mm-7s; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:34:03 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207000143.068394e0@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:33:53 +0100 To: "Scott Hollenbeck" , ltru@ietf.org From: r&d afrac Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060206193213.048a4620@mail.afrac.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6252180E X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 21:12 06/02/2006, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >Please remember that there are no corporate "members" here. Employment >status changes nothing and "representation" carries no weight as far as the >IETF is concerned. Correct. But we are in a real world where ethic not necessarily stands and commercial pressures and COI do exist. I have been submitted to harasment enough at the IETF, for having accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that. Using corporate mail address has a clear meaning. You perfectly know that, or you would use your Verisign mail address. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 20:17:36 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6HQQ-000190-0F; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:13:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6HQP-00017v-GL for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:13:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01495 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:11:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com ([209.55.107.55]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6HcW-00075M-T7 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:26:18 -0500 Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LYNM9MBGR4006KBE@mauve.mrochek.com> for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:13:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1139274797; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=bxEtSrRjzX1lop6GGf+272Bmp 5WrOtVYQEHu5WnvSDdbqSMAtJLPUObjTpvcOpkaIv+SWzJbHTJmBBQxKugvuw== Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01LYNFBGQDF400009C@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:13:15 -0800 (PST) To: r&d afrac Message-id: <01LYNM9LGUSQ00009C@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:55:07 -0800 (PST) From: Ned Freed Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:33:53 +0100" <6.2.3.4.2.20060207000143.068394e0@mail.afrac.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-6252180E References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060206193213.048a4620@mail.afrac.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20060207000143.068394e0@mail.afrac.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > At 21:12 06/02/2006, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > >Please remember that there are no corporate "members" here. Employment > >status changes nothing and "representation" carries no weight as far as the > >IETF is concerned. > Correct. > But we are in a real world where ethic not necessarily stands and > commercial pressures and COI do exist. Perhaps. But there is no causal relationship between this and the address someone happens to use. In fact if someone is attempting to unduly influence things for commercial interests they're likely to make sure they _don't_ use an email address associated with said commercial interest, wouldn't you think? > I have been submitted to harasment enough at the IETF, for having > accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that. That's your opinion. Others do not share it. > Using corporate mail address has a clear meaning. You perfectly know > that, or you would use your Verisign mail address. Nonsense. Whether I use my mrochek.com address (which despite being a .com is my own personal domain), my mrochek.org address, my nfreed.com address, my acm.org address, my innosoft.com address, my hmc.edu address, or my sun.com address is entirely a matter of what's most convenient for me in a given circumstance. It rarely if ever has any bearing on the role I'm assuming - if for no other reason than the there's no real relationship between the two. As far as the IETF is concerned any time I assume a role other than an individual contributor I'm careful to call it out explicitly. And I am far from alone in this approach. The idea that the email address someone sends from informs you of nefarious purpose makes about as much sense as predicting the future through the reading of entrails. Ned _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 22:13:30 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6JIH-0007S5-V5; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:13:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6JIG-0007RG-8t for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:13:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10161 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:11:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.240.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6JUO-00037m-Oe for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:26:04 -0500 Received: from charger ([68.100.55.187]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060207031311.JVCU14098.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@charger>; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:13:11 -0500 From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'r&d afrac'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:12:59 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01c62b94$6677f6d0$0623520a@charger> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207000143.068394e0@mail.afrac.org> Thread-Index: AcYrfjO09D0t2hCwQvmkpe4oqfsccwAFNhWg X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: r&d afrac [mailto:rd@afrac.org] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 7:34 PM > To: Scott Hollenbeck; ltru@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry > > At 21:12 06/02/2006, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: > >Please remember that there are no corporate "members" here. > Employment > >status changes nothing and "representation" carries no > weight as far as > >the IETF is concerned. > > Correct. > But we are in a real world where ethic not necessarily stands > and commercial pressures and COI do exist. > I have been submitted to harasment enough at the IETF, for > having accepted to help someone who hurt me, to know that. > Using corporate mail address has a clear meaning. You > perfectly know that, or you would use your Verisign mail address. Nope, that's a false assumption about my employer email address. I use this one for my AD business because employment isn't permanent and I prefer to not have to change things (or lose archives on corporate mail systems) if I change employers. Maybe it's hard to believe or accept, but I don't buy into the theory that someone using an employer's email address must have an agenda driven by their employer. It may just be a matter of operational convenience for them. I won't explore this rathole any further. IETF policy is documented and clear. Reminders shouldn't be necessary. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Feb 06 22:59:44 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6K12-00046V-F4; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:59:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6K0v-00042c-3e for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:59:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13328 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6KD6-0004mu-1Z for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:12:13 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F6K0k-0007cm-6U; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:59:26 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207044332.0635d580@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 04:59:16 +0100 To: "Scott Hollenbeck" , From: r&d afrac Subject: RE: [Ltru] Status of draft-ietf-ltru-registry In-Reply-To: <000c01c62b94$6677f6d0$0623520a@charger> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20060207000143.068394e0@mail.afrac.org> <000c01c62b94$6677f6d0$0623520a@charger> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-792C1C37 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 04:12 07/02/2006, Scott Hollenbeck wrote: >Maybe it's hard to believe or accept, but I don't buy into the theory that >someone using an employer's email address must have an agenda driven by >their employer. It may just be a matter of operational convenience for >them. I am afraid you did not understand the point. It is not that you would use the name of your corporation as a tool of influence - as Ned explained it you would probably hide the name in that case. It is the difficulties you can create to your company, because using a company name is official - and very often you do not use a disclaimer or someone can remove it in responding. In the case that Ned seems to know better than me, I accepted to make what the company asked for, to protect themselves and their employee against me. It worked for them. But did not protect me from the IETF :-) The only issue I see at using a private mail is when you would hide this way a COI you did not think about, because your company is engaged in various things, or because you copy people that other list members do not know. This is in particular the case in large groups, when people do not know your customers (as a consultant) and non-profits where mutual information is lose. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 16:20:55 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6aGc-0001f0-V3; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:20:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6aGa-0001b2-8b; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:20:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA03584; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout2.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6aT0-0008PX-0r; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:33:45 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout2.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k17LIlga031803; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:18:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=meS+QL15wVKrdK0/kXjbJUUtB6YlzZqoOf01+RwLDr7XCsX4zJWLdjCw8wG+J48e From: "Addison Phillips" To: Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:20:34 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c62c2c$5586d240$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C62BE9.47639240" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <1620.10.31.30.38.1139346573.squirrel@furball.foretec.com> Thread-Index: AcYsKupuOajkpByOQHCJJAJ7nJkMOQAATw6Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b083f4f2bdf728f0ea848ccc7744efa Cc: ltru@ietf.org Subject: [Ltru] RE: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C62BE9.47639240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Editor, Please find attached the corrected draft #9 (I previously forgot to change the year to 2006 from 2005) of draft-ietf-ltru-matching. Best Regards, Addison (for the editors) Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:10 PM > To: Addison Phillips > Subject: Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 > > The Secretariat CANNOT process your Internet-Draft submission due to > following reason(s): > > * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: > > Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). > > > > > Dear Editor, > > > > Please find attached draft #9 of draft-ietf-ltru-matching in text format. > > Fenner's ABNF validator and idnits both ran clean against it. > > > > Addison (for the editors) > > > > Addison Phillips > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > It is not a feature. > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C62BE9.47639240 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed.=0A= Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc=0A= Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved) M. Davis, Ed.=0A= Expires: August 10, 2005 Google=0A= February 6, 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Matching of Language Tags=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09=0A= =0A= Status of this Memo=0A= =0A= By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any=0A= applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware=0A= have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes=0A= aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering=0A= Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that=0A= other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-=0A= Drafts.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months=0A= and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any=0A= time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference=0A= material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."=0A= =0A= The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.=0A= =0A= The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.=0A= =0A= This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2005.=0A= =0A= Copyright Notice=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).=0A= =0A= Abstract=0A= =0A= This document describes different mechanisms for comparing, matching,=0A= and evaluating language tags. Possible algorithms for language=0A= negotiation or content selection, filtering, and lookup are=0A= described. This document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (replace=0A= "3066bis" with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC=0A= 1766.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 1]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Table of Contents=0A= =0A= 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=0A= 2. The Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5=0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7=0A= 3. Types of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.2. Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9=0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.3. Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15=0A= 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . 20=0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 21=0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 22=0A= 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24=0A= 6. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25=0A= 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26=0A= 8. Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27=0A= 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29=0A= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30=0A= Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 2]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 1. Introduction=0A= =0A= Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of=0A= languages. There are many reasons why one would want to identify the=0A= language used when presenting or requesting information.=0A= =0A= Information about a user's language preferences commonly needs to be=0A= identified so that appropriate processing can be applied. For=0A= example, the user's language preferences in a browser can be used to=0A= select web pages appropriately. Language preferences can also be=0A= used to select among tools (such as dictionaries) to assist in the=0A= processing or understanding of content in different languages.=0A= =0A= Given a set of language identifiers, such as those defined in=0A= [RFC3066bis], various mechanisms can be envisioned for performing=0A= language negotiation and tag matching.=0A= =0A= This document defines a syntax (called a language range (Section 2))=0A= for specifying a user's language preferences, as well as several=0A= schemes for selecting or filtering content by comparing language=0A= ranges to the language tags [RFC3066bis] used to identify the natural=0A= language of that content. Applications, protocols, or specifications=0A= will have varying needs and requirements that affect the choice of a=0A= suitable matching scheme. Depending on the choice of scheme, there=0A= are various options left to the implementation. Protocols that=0A= implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular=0A= choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to=0A= decide.=0A= =0A= This document is divided into three main sections. One describes how=0A= to indicate a user's preferences using language ranges. Then a=0A= section describes various schemes for matching these ranges to a set=0A= of language tags in order to select specific content. There is also=0A= a section that deals with various practical considerations that apply=0A= to implementing and using these schemes.=0A= =0A= This document, in combination with [RFC3066bis] (Ed.: replace=0A= "3066bis" globally in this document with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces [RFC3066], which replaced=0A= [RFC1766].=0A= =0A= The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=0A= "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this=0A= document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 3]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 2. The Language Range=0A= =0A= Language Tags [RFC3066bis] are used to identify the language of some=0A= information item or content. Applications or protocols that use=0A= language tags are often faced with the problem of identifying sets of=0A= content that share certain language attributes. For example,=0A= HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] describes one such mechanism in its discussion of=0A= the Accept-Language header (Section 14.4), which is used when=0A= selecting content from servers based on the language of that content.=0A= =0A= When selecting content according to its language, it is useful to=0A= have a mechanism for identifying sets of language tags that share=0A= specific attributes. This allows users to select or filter content=0A= based on specific requirements. Such an identifier is called a=0A= "Language Range".=0A= =0A= Language ranges are similar in structure and content to language=0A= tags: they consist of alphanumeric "subtags" separated by hyphens,=0A= plus a special subtag consisting of the character "*" (%2A,=0A= ASTERISK), which is used in ranges as a "wildcard", that is, a value=0A= that matches any subtag.=0A= =0A= Language tags and thus language ranges are to be treated as case-=0A= insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some=0A= of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning.=0A= Matching of language tags to language ranges MUST be done in a case-=0A= insensitive manner as well.=0A= =0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range=0A= =0A= A "basic language range" identifies the set of content whose language=0A= tags begin with the same sequence of subtags. Each range consists of=0A= a sequence of alphanumeric subtags separated by hyphens. The basic=0A= language range is defined by the following ABNF[RFC4234]:=0A= =0A= language-range =3D language-tag / "*"=0A= language-tag =3D 1*8[alphanum] *["-" 1*8alphanum]=0A= alphanum =3D ALPHA / DIGIT=0A= =0A= Basic language ranges (originally described by HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] and=0A= later [RFC3066]) have the same syntax as an [RFC3066] language tag or=0A= are the single character "*". They differ from the language tags=0A= defined in [RFC3066bis] only in that there is no requirement that=0A= they be "well-formed" or be validated against the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (although such ill-formed ranges will probably not=0A= match anything).=0A= =0A= Use of a basic language range seems to imply that there is a semantic=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 4]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= relationship between language tags that share the same prefix. While=0A= this is often the case, it is not always true and users should note=0A= that the set of language tags that match a specific language-range=0A= may not be mutually intelligible.=0A= =0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range=0A= =0A= A Basic Language Range does not always provide the most appropriate=0A= way to specify a user's preferences. Sometimes it is beneficial to=0A= use a more fine-grained matching scheme that takes advantage of the=0A= internal structure of language tags. This allows the user to=0A= specify, for example, the value of a specific field in a language tag=0A= or to indicate which values are of interest in filtering or selecting=0A= the content.=0A= =0A= In an extended language range, the identifier takes the form of a=0A= series of subtags which MUST consist of well-formed subtags or the=0A= special subtag "*". For example, the language range "en-*-US"=0A= specifies a primary language of 'en', followed by any script subtag,=0A= followed by the region subtag 'US'.=0A= =0A= An extended language range can be represented by the following ABNF:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 5]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= extended-language-range =3D range ; a range=0A= / privateuse ; a private-use range=0A= / grandfathered ; a grandfathered registration=0A= =0A= range =3D (language=0A= ["-" script]=0A= ["-" region]=0A= *("-" variant)=0A= *("-" extension)=0A= ["-" privateuse])=0A= =0A= language =3D (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code=0A= / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use=0A= / 5*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extlang =3D *2("-" 3ALPHA) ("-" ( 3ALPHA / "*"))=0A= ; reserved for future use=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= script =3D 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= region =3D 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code=0A= / 3DIGIT ; UN M.49 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= variant =3D 5*8alphanum ; registered variants=0A= / (DIGIT 3alphanum) ;=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extension =3D singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ]=0A= ; extension subtags=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= singleton =3D %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT=0A= ; single letters (except for "x") or digits=0A= =0A= privateuse =3D "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))=0A= =0A= grandfathered =3D 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))=0A= ; grandfathered registration=0A= ; Note: I is the only singleton=0A= ; that starts a grandfathered tag=0A= =0A= alphanum =3D (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 6]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= A field not present in the middle of an extended language range is=0A= treated as if the field contained a "*". Implementations that=0A= normalize extended language ranges SHOULD expand missing fields to be=0A= "*" so that the semantic meaning of the language range is clear to=0A= the user. At the same time, multiple wildcards in a row are=0A= redundant and implementations SHOULD collapse these to a single=0A= wildcard when normalizing the range (for brevity). For example, both=0A= the range "sl-nedis" and the range "sl-*-*-nedis" are equivalent to=0A= and should be normalized as "sl-*-nedis".=0A= =0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List=0A= =0A= When users specify a language preference they often need to specify a=0A= prioritized list of language ranges in order to best reflect their=0A= language preferences. This is especially true for speakers of=0A= minority languages. A speaker of Breton in France, for example, may=0A= specify "be" followed by "fr", meaning that if Breton is available,=0A= it is preferred, but otherwise French is the best alternative. It=0A= can get more complex: a speaker may wish to fall back from Skolt Sami=0A= to Northern Sami to Finnish.=0A= =0A= A "Language Priority List" is a prioritized or weighted list of=0A= language ranges. One well known example of such a list is the=0A= "Accept-Language" header defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616] (see Section=0A= 14.4) and RFC 3282 [RFC3282]. A simple list of ranges, i.e. one that=0A= contains no weighting information, is considered to be in descending=0A= order of priority.=0A= =0A= The various matching operations described in this document include=0A= considerations for using a language priority list. This document=0A= does not define any syntax for a language priority list; defining=0A= such a syntax is the responsibility of the protocol, application, or=0A= implementation that uses it. When given as examples in this=0A= document, language priority lists will be shown as a quoted sequence=0A= of ranges separated by semi-colons, like this: "en; fr; zh-Hant"=0A= (which would be read as "English before French before Chinese as=0A= written in the Traditional script").=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 7]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 3. Types of Matching=0A= =0A= Matching language ranges to language tags can be done in a number of=0A= different ways. This section describes several different matching=0A= schemes, as well as the considerations for choosing between them.=0A= Protocols and specifications SHOULD clearly indicate the particular=0A= mechanism used in selecting or matching language tags.=0A= =0A= There are two basic types of matching scheme: those that produce zero=0A= or more information items (called "filtering") and those that produce=0A= a single information item for a given request (called "lookup").=0A= =0A= A key difference between these two types of matching scheme is that=0A= the language ranges in the language priority list represent the=0A= _least_ specific content one will accept as a match, while for lookup=0A= operations the language ranges represent the _most_ specific content.=0A= =0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching=0A= =0A= Applications, protocols, and specifications are faced with the=0A= decision of what type of matching to use. Sometimes, different=0A= styles of matching might be suited for different kinds of processing=0A= within a particular application or protocol.=0A= =0A= Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a=0A= complete procedure for the use of language tags. Such procedures are=0A= intimately tied to the application protocol in which they occur.=0A= When specifying a protocol operation using matching, the protocol=0A= MUST specify:=0A= =0A= o Which type(s) of language tag matching it uses=0A= =0A= o Whether the operation returns a single result (lookup) or a=0A= possibly empty set of results (filtering)=0A= =0A= o For lookup, what the result is when no matching tag is found. For=0A= instance, a protocol might result in failure of the operation, an=0A= empty value, returning some protocol defined or implementation=0A= defined default, or returning i-default [RFC2277].=0A= =0A= Filtering can be used to produce a set of results (such as a=0A= collection of documents). For example, if using a search engine, one=0A= might use filtering to limit the results to documents written in=0A= French. It can also be used when deciding whether to perform a=0A= language-sensitive process on some content. For example, a process=0A= might cause paragraphs whose language tag matched the language range=0A= "nl" to be displayed in italics within a document.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 8]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= This document describes four types of matching (three types of=0A= filtering, plus the lookup scheme):=0A= =0A= 1. Basic Filtering (Section 3.2.1) is used to match content using=0A= basic language ranges (Section 2.1).=0A= =0A= 2. Extended Range Filtering (Section 3.2.2) is used to match content=0A= using extended language ranges (Section 2.2).=0A= =0A= 3. Scored Filtering (Section 3.2.3) produces an ordered set of=0A= content using extended language ranges. It SHOULD be used when=0A= the quality of the match within a specific language range is=0A= important, as when presenting a list of documents resulting from=0A= a search.=0A= =0A= 4. Lookup (Section 3.3) is used when each request needs to produce=0A= _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if a process were=0A= to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header,=0A= it might select the text based on the user's language preference.=0A= Since it can return only one item, it must choose a single item=0A= and it must return some item, even if no content matches the=0A= language priority list supplied by the user.=0A= =0A= Most types of matching in this document are designed so that=0A= implementations are not required to validate or understand any of the=0A= semantics of the subtags supplied and, except for scored filtering,=0A= they do not need access to the IANA Language Subtag Registry (see=0A= Section 3 in [RFC3066bis]). This simplifies and speeds the=0A= performance of implementations.=0A= =0A= Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and=0A= implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping=0A= grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents.=0A= If an implementation canonicalizes either ranges or tags, then the=0A= implementation will require the IANA Language Subtag Registry=0A= information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic=0A= information external to the registry when matching tags. For=0A= example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and=0A= 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more=0A= general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer=0A= that content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh-=0A= Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW".=0A= =0A= 3.2. Filtering=0A= =0A= Filtering is used to select the set of content that matches a given=0A= language priority list. It is called "filtering" because this set of=0A= content may contain no items at all or it may return an arbitrarily=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 9]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= large number of matching items: as many items as match the language=0A= priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items.=0A= =0A= In filtering, the language range represents the _least_ specific=0A= (that is, the fewest number of subtags) language tag which is an=0A= acceptable match. That is, all of the language tags in the set of=0A= filtered content will have an equal or greater number of subtags than=0A= the language range. For example, if the language priority list=0A= consists of the range "de-CH", one might see matching content with=0A= the tag "de-CH-1996" but one will never see a match with the tag=0A= "de".=0A= =0A= If the language priority list (see Section 2.3) contains more than=0A= one range, the content returned is typically ordered in descending=0A= level of preference.=0A= =0A= Some examples where filtering might be appropriate include:=0A= =0A= o Applying a style to sections of a document in a particular set of=0A= languages.=0A= =0A= o Displaying the set of documents containing a particular set of=0A= keywords written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= o Selecting all email items written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= Filtering can produce either an ordered or an unordered set of=0A= results. For example, applying formatting to a document based on the=0A= language of specific pieces of content does not require the content=0A= to be ordered. It is sufficient to know whether a specific piece of=0A= content is selected by the language priority list (or not). A search=0A= application, on the other hand, probably would want to order the=0A= results.=0A= =0A= If an ordered set is desired, as described above, then the=0A= application or protocol needs to determine the relative "quality" of=0A= the match between different language tags and the language range.=0A= =0A= This measurement is called a "distance metric". A distance metric=0A= assigns a numeric value to the comparison of a language tag to a=0A= language range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A=0A= distance of zero means that they are identical, a small distance=0A= indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indicates=0A= that they are very different. Using a distance metric,=0A= implementations can, for example, allow users to select a threshold=0A= distance for a match to be "successful" while filtering, or they=0A= might use the numeric values to order the results.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 10]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using basic language ranges, each basic language range=0A= in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to=0A= priority. A particular language tag matches a language range if it=0A= exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag=0A= such that the first character following the prefix is "-". (That is,=0A= the language-range "de-de" matches the language tag "de-DE-1996", but=0A= not the language tag "de-Deva".)=0A= =0A= The special range "*" in a language priority list matches any tag. A=0A= protocol which uses language ranges MAY specify additional rules=0A= about the semantics of "*"; for instance, HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616]=0A= specifies that the range "*" matches only languages not matched by=0A= any other range within an "Accept-Language" header.=0A= =0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using extended language ranges, each extended language=0A= range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according=0A= to priority. The subtags in each extended language range are=0A= compared to the corresponding subtags in the language tag being=0A= examined. The subtag from the range is considered to match if it=0A= exactly matches the corresponding subtag in the tag or the range's=0A= subtag has the value "*" (which matches all subtags, including the=0A= empty subtag).=0A= =0A= Subtags not specified, including those at the end of the language=0A= range, are assigned the wildcard value "*". This makes each range=0A= into a prefix much like that used in basic language range matching.=0A= For example, the extended language range "de-*-DE" matches all of the=0A= following tags, in part because the unspecified variant, extension,=0A= and private-use subtags are expanded to "*":=0A= =0A= de-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latf-DE=0A= =0A= de-DE-x-goethe=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE-1996=0A= =0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering=0A= =0A= Both basic and extended language range filtering produce simple=0A= boolean matches between a language range and a language tag.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 11]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Sometimes it may be useful to provide an array of results with=0A= different levels of matching, for example, sorting results based on=0A= the overall "quality" of the match. Scored (or "distance metric")=0A= filtering provides a way to generate these quality values.=0A= =0A= As with the other forms of filtering, the process considers each=0A= language range in the language priority list in order of priority.=0A= =0A= Each extended language range and language tag MUST first be=0A= canonicalized by mapping grandfathered and obsolete tags into modern=0A= equivalents. This requires the information in the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (see Section 3 of [RFC3066bis]).=0A= =0A= The language range and each language tag it is to be compared to are=0A= then transformed into a "quintuple" consisting of five "elements" in=0A= the form (language, script, country, variant, extension).=0A= =0A= Any extended language subtags are considered part of the language=0A= "element". For example, the language element for the tag "zh-cmn-=0A= Hans" would be "zh-cmn".=0A= =0A= Private-use subtag sequences are considered part of the language=0A= "element" if in the initial position in the tag and part of the=0A= variant "element" if not. The different handling of private-use=0A= sequences prevents a range such as "x-twain" from matching all=0A= possible tags, while a range such as "en-US-x-twain" would closely=0A= match nearly all tags for English as used in the United States.=0A= =0A= Language subtags 'und', 'mul', and the script subtag 'Zyyy' are=0A= converted to "*": these subtag values represent undetermined,=0A= multiple, or private-use values which are consistent with the use of=0A= the wildcard.=0A= =0A= For language tags that have no script subtag but whose language=0A= subtag's record in the IANA Language Subtag Registry contains the=0A= field "Suppress-Script", the script element in the quintuple MUST be=0A= set to the script subtag in the Suppress-Script field. This is=0A= necessary because [RFC3066bis] strongly recommends that users not use=0A= this subtag to form language tags and this document (see Section 4.1)=0A= recommends that users not use them to form ranges. Languages which=0A= have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are predominantly=0A= written in that single script, making the subtag redundant in forming=0A= a language tag or range. Thus if the script were not expanded in=0A= this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a more-distant=0A= score for content that happened to be labeled "de-Latn-DE" than users=0A= would expect that it should.=0A= =0A= Any remaining missing components in the language tag are set to "*";=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 12]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= thus an empty language tag becomes the quintuple ("*", "*", "*", "*",=0A= "*"). Missing components in the language range are handled similarly=0A= to extended range lookup: missing internal subtags are expanded to=0A= "*". Missing end subtags are expanded as the empty string. Thus a=0A= pattern "en-US" becomes the quintuple ("en","*","US","","").=0A= =0A= Here are some examples of language tags, showing their quintuples as=0A= both language tags and language ranges:=0A= =0A= en-US=0A= Tag: (en, *, US, *, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, US, "", "")=0A= =0A= sr-Latn=0A= Tag: (sr, Latn, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (sr, Latn, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= zh-cmn-Hant=0A= Tag: (zh-cmn, Hant, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (zh-cmn, Hant, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= x-foo=0A= Tag: (x-foo, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (x-foo, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= en-x-foo=0A= Tag: (en, *, *, x-foo, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, *, x-foo, "")=0A= =0A= i-default=0A= Tag: (i-default, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (i-default, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= sl-Latn-IT-rozaj=0A= Tag: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, *)=0A= Range: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, "")=0A= =0A= zh-r-wadegile (hypothetical)=0A= Tag: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= Range: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= =0A= Figure 3: Examples of Distance Metric Quintuples=0A= =0A= Each pair of quintuples being compared is assigned a distance value,=0A= in which small values indicate better matches and large values=0A= indicate worse ones. The distance between the pair is the sum of the=0A= distances for each of the corresponding elements of the quintuple.=0A= If the elements are identical or one is '*', then the distance value=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 13]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= between them is zero. Otherwise, it is given by the following table:=0A= 256 language mismatch=0A= 128 script mismatch=0A= 32 region mismatch=0A= 4 variant mismatch=0A= 1 extension mismatch=0A= =0A= A value of 0 is a perfect match; 421 is no match at all. Different=0A= threshold values might be appropriate for different applications or=0A= protocols. Implementations will usually allow users to choose the=0A= most appropriate selection value, ranking the matched items based on=0A= score.=0A= =0A= Examples of various tag's distances from the range "en-US":=0A= =0A= "fr-FR" 384 (language & region mismatch)=0A= "fr" 256 (language mismatch, region match)=0A= "en-GB" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-Latn-US" 0 (all fields match)=0A= "en-Brai" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-US-x-foo" 4 (variant mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= "en-US-r-wadegile" 1 (extension mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list follows the syntax of the "Accept-=0A= Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and=0A= [RFC3282], language ranges without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language range in the list (processing=0A= from first to last). If the first language range has no Q value, it=0A= is given a value of 1.0. Language ranges with Q values of zero are=0A= removed. For example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes=0A= "fr;q=3D1.0,en;q=3D0.5,de;q=3D0.5,it;q=3D0.5". The distance values = given=0A= above are then divided by the Q values. For example, if that=0A= language tag "fr-FR" has a distance of 384 from a language range with=0A= a Q value of 0.8, then the resulting distance is 480 (384 div 0.8).=0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different weighting systems than=0A= the ones described above, as long as the weightings and weighting=0A= mechanisms are clearly specified. Thus, for example, an=0A= implementation or protocol could give all language tags with missing=0A= Q values a value of 1.0, or give the distance value 1000 to a=0A= language mismatch. They MAY also use more sophisticated weights that=0A= depend on the values of the corresponding elements. For example, an=0A= implementation might give a small distance to the difference closely=0A= related subtags. Some examples of closely related subtags might be:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 14]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Language:=0A= no (Norwegian)=0A= nb (Bokmal Norwegian)=0A= nn (Nynorsk Norwegian)=0A= =0A= Script:=0A= Kata (katakana)=0A= Hira (hiragana)=0A= =0A= Region:=0A= US (United States of America)=0A= UM (United States Minor Outlying Islands)=0A= =0A= Figure 6: Examples of Closely Related Subtags=0A= =0A= 3.3. Lookup=0A= =0A= Lookup is used to select the single information item that best=0A= matches the language priority list for a given request. When=0A= performing lookup, each language range in the language priority list=0A= is considered in turn, according to priority. By contrast with=0A= filtering, each language ranges represents the _most_ specific tag=0A= which is an acceptable match. The first information item found with=0A= a matching tag, according the user's priority, is considered the=0A= closest match and is the item returned. For example, if the language=0A= range is "de-CH", one might expect to receive an information item=0A= with the tag "de" but never one with the tag "de-CH-1996". Usually=0A= if no content matches the request, a "default" item is returned.=0A= =0A= For example, if an application inserts some dynamic content into a=0A= document, returning an empty string if there is no exact match is not=0A= an option. Instead, the application "falls back" until it finds a=0A= suitable piece of content to insert. Other examples of lookup might=0A= include:=0A= =0A= o Selection of a template containing the text for an automated email=0A= response.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a item containing some text for inclusion in a=0A= particular Web page.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a string of text for inclusion in an error log.=0A= =0A= In the lookup scheme, the language range is progressively truncated=0A= from the end until a matching piece of content is located. For=0A= example, starting with the range "zh-Hant-CN-x-private", the lookup=0A= progressively searches for content as shown below:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 15]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Range to match: zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 1. zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 2. zh-Hant-CN=0A= 3. zh-Hant=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (default content or the empty tag)=0A= =0A= Figure 7: Example of a Lookup Fallback Pattern=0A= =0A= This scheme allows some flexibility in finding content. For example,=0A= it provides better results for cases in which data is not available=0A= that exactly matches the user request than if the default language=0A= for the system or content were returned immediately. Not every=0A= specific level of tag granularity is usually available or language=0A= content may be sparsely populated, so "falling back" through the=0A= subtag sequence provides more opportunity to find a match between=0A= available content and the user's request.=0A= =0A= The default content is implementation defined. It might be content=0A= with no language tag; might have an empty value (the built-in=0A= attribute xml:lang in [XML10] permits the empty value); might be a=0A= particular language designated for that bit of content; or it might=0A= be content that is labeled with the tag "i-default" (see [RFC2277]).=0A= When performing lookup using a language priority list, the=0A= progressive search MUST proceed to consider each language range in=0A= the list before finding the default content or empty tag.=0A= =0A= One common way for an application or implementation to provide for=0A= default content is to allow a specific language range to be set as=0A= the default for a specific type of request. This language range is=0A= then treated as if it were appended to the end of the language=0A= priority list as a whole, rather than after each item in the language=0A= priority list.=0A= =0A= For example, if a particular user's language priority list were=0A= "fr-FR; zh-Hant" and the program doing the matching had a default=0A= language range of "ja-JP", the program would search for content as=0A= follows:=0A= 1. fr-FR=0A= 2. fr=0A= 3. zh-Hant // next language=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (search for the default content)=0A= a. ja-JP=0A= b. ja=0A= c. (implementation defined default)=0A= =0A= Figure 8: Lookup Using a Language Priority List=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 16]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations SHOULD ignore extensions and unrecognized private-use=0A= subtags when performing lookup, since these subtags are usually=0A= orthogonal to the user's request.=0A= =0A= The special language range "*" matches any language tag. In the=0A= lookup scheme, this range does not convey enough information by=0A= itself to determine which content is most appropriate, since it=0A= matches everything. If the language range "*" is the only one in the=0A= language priority list, it matches the default content. If the=0A= language range "*" is followed by other language ranges, it should be=0A= skipped.=0A= =0A= In some cases, the language priority list might contain one or more=0A= extended language ranges (as, for example, when the same language=0A= priority list is used as input for both lookup and filtering=0A= operations). Wildcard values in an extended language range normally=0A= match any value that occurs in that position in a language tag.=0A= Since only one item can be returned for any given lookup request,=0A= wildcards in a language range have to be processed in a consistent=0A= manner or the same request will produce widely varying results.=0A= Implementations that accept extended language ranges MUST define=0A= which content is returned when more than one item matches the=0A= extended language range.=0A= =0A= For example, an implementation could return the matching content that=0A= is first in ASCII-order. For example, if the language range were=0A= "*-CH" and the set of content included "de-CH", "fr-CH", and "it-CH",=0A= then the content labeled "de-CH" would be returned.=0A= =0A= Implementations MAY also map extended language ranges to basic=0A= language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range=0A= is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each=0A= wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were=0A= "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US".=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list contains Q values as in the syntax of=0A= the "Accept-Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4)=0A= and [RFC3282], language tags without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language tag (processing from first to=0A= last). If the first language tag has no Q value, it is given a value=0A= of 1.0. Then language tags with zero Q values are removed. For=0A= example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=3D1.0, en;q=3D0.5,=0A= de;q=3D0.5, it;q=3D0.5". The language priority list is then sorted = from=0A= highest priority to lowest, whereby any two language tags with the=0A= same Q values are remain in the same order as in the original=0A= language priority list. This list is then traversed as described=0A= above in doing lookup.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 17]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different lookup mechanisms=0A= systems than the ones described above, as long as those mechanisms=0A= are clearly specified.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 18]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 4. Other Considerations=0A= =0A= When working with language ranges and matching schemes, there are=0A= some additional points that may influence the choice of either.=0A= =0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges=0A= =0A= Users indicate their language preferences via the choice of a=0A= language range or the list of language ranges in a language priority=0A= list. The type of matching affects what the best choice is for a=0A= given user.=0A= =0A= Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning=0A= of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually=0A= compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being=0A= matched, using basic string processing.=0A= =0A= Users SHOULD avoid subtags that add no distinguishing value to a=0A= language range. Generally, the fewer subtags that appear in the=0A= language range, the more content the range will match.=0A= =0A= Most notably, script subtags SHOULD NOT be used to form a language=0A= range in combination with language subtags that have a matching=0A= Suppress-Script field in their registry entry. Thus the language=0A= range "en-Latn" is probably inappropriate in most cases (because the=0A= vast majority of English documents are written in the Latin script=0A= and thus the 'en' language subtag has a Suppress-Script field for=0A= 'Latn' in the registry).=0A= =0A= When working with tags and ranges, note that extensions and most=0A= private-use subtags are orthogonal to language tag matching, in that=0A= they specify additional attributes of the text not related to the=0A= goals of most matching schemes. Users SHOULD avoid using these=0A= subtags in language ranges, since they interfere with the selection=0A= of available content. When used in language tags (as opposed to=0A= ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering=0A= (Section 3), since they appear at the end of the tag and will match=0A= all prefixes.=0A= =0A= When working with language tags and language ranges note that:=0A= =0A= o Private-use and Extension subtags are normally orthogonal to=0A= language tag fallback. Implementations or specifications that use=0A= a lookup (Section 3.3) matching scheme often ignore unrecognized=0A= private-use and extension subtags when performing language tag=0A= fallback. In addition, since these subtags are always at the end=0A= of the sequence of subtags, their use in language tags normally=0A= doesn't interfere with the use of ranges that omit them in the=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 19]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= filtering (Section 3.2) matching schemes described below.=0A= However, they do interfere with filtering when used in language=0A= ranges and SHOULD be avoided in ranges as a result.=0A= =0A= o Applications, specifications, or protocols that choose not to=0A= interpret one or more private-use or extension subtags SHOULD NOT=0A= remove or modify these extensions in content that they are=0A= processing. When a language tag instance is to be used in a=0A= specific, known protocol, and is not being passed through to other=0A= protocols, language tags MAY be filtered to remove subtags and=0A= extensions that are not supported by that protocol. Such=0A= filtering SHOULD be avoided, if possible, since it removes=0A= information that might be relevant to services on the other end of=0A= the protocol that would make use of that information.=0A= =0A= o Some applications of language tags might want or need to consider=0A= extensions and private-use subtags when matching tags. If=0A= extensions and private-use subtags are included in a matching or=0A= filtering process that utilizes one of the schemes described in=0A= this document, then the implementation SHOULD canonicalize the=0A= language tags and/or ranges before performing the matching. Note=0A= that language tag processors that claim to be "well-formed"=0A= processors as defined in [RFC3066bis] generally fall into this=0A= category.=0A= =0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges=0A= =0A= Selecting content using language ranges requires some understanding=0A= by users of what they are selecting. A language tag or range=0A= identifies a language as spoken (or written, signed or otherwise=0A= signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other=0A= human beings.=0A= =0A= If a language tag B contains language tag A as a prefix, then B is=0A= typically "narrower" or "more specific" than A. For example, "zh-=0A= Hant-TW" is more specific than "zh-Hant".=0A= =0A= This relationship is not guaranteed in all cases: specifically,=0A= languages that begin with the same sequence of subtags are NOT=0A= guaranteed to be mutually intelligible, although they might be.=0A= =0A= For example, the tag "az" shares a prefix with both "az-Latn"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Latin script) and "az-Arab"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Arabic script). A person fluent in=0A= one script might not be able to read the other, even though the text=0A= might be otherwise identical. Content tagged as "az" most probably=0A= is written in just one script and thus might not be intelligible to a=0A= reader familiar with the other script.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 20]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Variant subtags in particular seem to represent specific divisions in=0A= mutual understanding, since they often encode dialects or other=0A= idiosyncratic variations within a language. They also seem to=0A= represent relatively low divisions with a high chance of at least=0A= limited understanding, although this depends on the specific variant=0A= in question.=0A= =0A= The relationship between the language tag and the information it=0A= relates to is defined by the standard describing the context in which=0A= it appears. Accordingly, this section can only give possible=0A= examples of its usage:=0A= =0A= o For a single information object, the associated language tags=0A= might be interpreted as the set of languages that are necessary=0A= for a complete comprehension of the complete object. Example:=0A= Plain text documents.=0A= =0A= o For an aggregation of information objects, the associated language=0A= tags could be taken as the set of languages used inside components=0A= of that aggregation. Examples: Document stores and libraries.=0A= =0A= o For information objects whose purpose is to provide alternatives,=0A= the associated language tags could be regarded as a hint that the=0A= content is provided in several languages, and that one has to=0A= inspect each of the alternatives in order to find its language or=0A= languages. In this case, the presence of multiple tags might not=0A= mean that one needs to be multi-lingual to get complete=0A= understanding of the document. Example: MIME multipart/=0A= alternative.=0A= =0A= o In markup languages, such as HTML and XML, language information=0A= can be added to each part of the document identified by the markup=0A= structure (including the whole document itself). For example, one=0A= could write C'est la vie. inside a=0A= Norwegian document; the Norwegian-speaking user could then access=0A= a French-Norwegian dictionary to find out what the marked section=0A= meant. If the user were listening to that document through a=0A= speech synthesis interface, this formation could be used to signal=0A= the synthesizer to appropriately apply French text-to-speech=0A= pronunciation rules to that span of text, instead of misapplying=0A= the Norwegian rules.=0A= =0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags=0A= =0A= Private-use subtags require private agreement between the parties=0A= that intend to use or exchange language tags that use them and great=0A= caution SHOULD be used in employing them in content or protocols=0A= intended for general use. Private-use subtags are simply useless for=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 21]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= information exchange without prior arrangement.=0A= =0A= The value and semantic meaning of private-use tags and of the subtags=0A= used within such a language tag are not defined. Matching private-=0A= use tags using language ranges or extended language ranges can result=0A= in unpredictable content being returned.=0A= =0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching=0A= =0A= RFC 3066 [RFC3066] did not provide an upper limit on the size of=0A= language tags or ranges. RFC 3066 did define the semantics of=0A= particular subtags in such a way that most language tags or ranges=0A= consisted of language and region subtags with a combined total length=0A= of up to six characters. Larger tags and ranges (in terms of both=0A= subtags and characters) did exist, however.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis] also does not impose a fixed upper limit on the number=0A= of subtags in a language tag or range (and thus an upper bound on the=0A= size of either). The syntax in that document suggests that,=0A= depending on the specific language or range of languages, more=0A= subtags (and thus characters) are sometimes necessary as a result.=0A= Length considerations and their impact on the selection and=0A= processing of tags are described in Section 2.1.1 of that document.=0A= =0A= An application or protocol MAY choose to limit the length of the=0A= language tags or ranges used in matching. Any such limitation SHOULD=0A= be clearly documented, and such documentation SHOULD include the=0A= disposition of any longer tags or ranges (for example, whether an=0A= error value is generated or the language tag or range is truncated).=0A= If truncation is permitted it MUST NOT permit a subtag to be divided,=0A= since this changes the semantics of the subtag being matched and can=0A= result in false positives or negatives.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols that restrict storage SHOULD consider the=0A= impact of tag or range truncation on the resulting matches. For=0A= example, removing the "*" from the end of an extended language range=0A= (see Section 2.2) can greatly modify the set of returned matches. A=0A= protocol that allows tags or ranges to be truncated at an arbitrary=0A= limit, without giving any indication of what that limit is, has the=0A= potential for causing harm by changing the meaning of values in=0A= substantial ways.=0A= =0A= In practice, most tags do not require additional subtags or=0A= substantially more characters. Additional subtags sometimes add=0A= useful distinguishing information, but extraneous subtags interfere=0A= with the meaning, understanding, and especially matching of language=0A= tags. Since language tags or ranges MAY be truncated by an=0A= application or protocol that limits storage, when choosing language=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 22]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= tags or ranges users and applications SHOULD avoid adding subtags=0A= that add no distinguishing value. In particular, users and=0A= implementations SHOULD follow the 'Prefix' and 'Suppress-Script'=0A= fields in the registry (defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC3066bis]):=0A= these fields provide guidance on when specific additional subtags=0A= SHOULD (and SHOULD NOT) be used.=0A= =0A= Implementations MUST support a limit of at least 33 characters. This=0A= limit includes at least one subtag of each non-extension, non-private=0A= use type. When choosing a buffer limit, a length of at least 42=0A= characters is strongly RECOMMENDED.=0A= =0A= The practical limit on tags or ranges derived solely from registered=0A= values is 42 characters. Implementations MUST be able to handle tags=0A= and ranges of this length. Support for tags and ranges of at least=0A= 62 characters in length is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MAY support=0A= longer values, including matching extensive sets of private-use or=0A= extension subtags.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols which have to truncate a tag MUST do so by=0A= progressively removing subtags along with their preceding "-" from=0A= the right side of the language tag until the tag is short enough for=0A= the given buffer. If the resulting tag ends with a single-character=0A= subtag, that subtag and its preceding "-" MUST also be removed. For=0A= example:=0A= =0A= Tag to truncate: zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1=0A= 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile=0A= 2. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1=0A= 3. zh-Latn-CN-variant1=0A= 4. zh-Latn-CN=0A= 5. zh-Latn=0A= 6. zh=0A= =0A= Figure 9: Example of Tag Truncation=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 23]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 5. IANA Considerations=0A= =0A= This document presents no new or existing considerations for IANA.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 24]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 6. Changes=0A= =0A= This is the first version of this document.=0A= =0A= The following changes were put into this document since draft-07:=0A= =0A= Added a mention of "*" to the Character Set Considerations section=0A= (D.Ewell)=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 25]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 7. Security Considerations=0A= =0A= Language ranges used in content negotiation might be used to infer=0A= the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential targets=0A= for surveillance. In addition, unique or highly unusual language=0A= ranges or combinations of language ranges might be used to track a=0A= specific individual's activities.=0A= =0A= This is a special case of the general problem that anything you send=0A= is visible to the receiving party. It is useful to be aware that=0A= such concerns can exist in some cases.=0A= =0A= The evaluation of the exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible=0A= countermeasures, is left to each application or protocol.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 26]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 8. Character Set Considerations=0A= =0A= Language tags permit only the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and HYPHEN-=0A= MINUS (%x2D). Language ranges also use the character ASTERISK=0A= (%x2A). These characters are present in most character sets, so=0A= presentation or exchange of language tags or ranges should not be=0A= constrained by character set issues.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 27]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= 9. References=0A= =0A= 9.1. Normative References=0A= =0A= [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate=0A= Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.=0A= =0A= [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and=0A= Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis]=0A= Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for the=0A= Identification of Languages", October 2005, .=0A= =0A= [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax=0A= Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.=0A= =0A= 9.2. Informative References=0A= =0A= [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.=0A= =0A= [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,=0A= Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext=0A= Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.=0A= =0A= [RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282,=0A= May 2002.=0A= =0A= [XML10] Bray (et al), T., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0",=0A= 02 2004.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 28]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements=0A= =0A= Any list of contributors is bound to be incomplete; please regard the=0A= following as only a selection from the group of people who have=0A= contributed to make this document what it is today.=0A= =0A= The contributors to [RFC3066bis], [RFC3066] and [RFC1766], each of=0A= which is a precursor to this document, made enormous contributions=0A= directly or indirectly to this document and are generally responsible=0A= for the success of language tags.=0A= =0A= The following people (in alphabetical order by family name)=0A= contributed to this document:=0A= =0A= Harald Alvestrand, Jeremy Carroll, John Cowan, Martin Duerst, Frank=0A= Ellermann, Doug Ewell, Marion Gunn, Kent Karlsson, Ira McDonald, M.=0A= Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many,=0A= many others.=0A= =0A= Very special thanks must go to Harald Tveit Alvestrand, who=0A= originated RFCs 1766 and 3066, and without whom this document would=0A= not have been possible.=0A= =0A= For this particular document, John Cowan originated the scheme=0A= described in Section 3.2.3. Mark Davis originated the scheme=0A= described in the Section 3.3.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 29]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Authors' Addresses=0A= =0A= Addison Phillips (editor)=0A= Yahoo! Inc=0A= =0A= Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= Mark Davis (editor)=0A= Google=0A= =0A= Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 30]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2005=0A= =0A= =0A= Intellectual Property Statement=0A= =0A= The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any=0A= Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to=0A= pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in=0A= this document or the extent to which any license under such rights=0A= might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has=0A= made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information=0A= on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be=0A= found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any=0A= assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an=0A= attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of=0A= such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this=0A= specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ipr.=0A= =0A= The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any=0A= copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary=0A= rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement=0A= this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at=0A= ietf-ipr@ietf.org.=0A= =0A= =0A= Disclaimer of Validity=0A= =0A= This document and the information contained herein are provided on an=0A= "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS=0A= OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET=0A= ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,=0A= INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE=0A= INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED=0A= WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.=0A= =0A= =0A= Copyright Statement=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject=0A= to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and=0A= except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.=0A= =0A= =0A= Acknowledgment=0A= =0A= Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the=0A= Internet Society.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2005 [Page 31]=0A= =0C=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C62BE9.47639240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C62BE9.47639240-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 16:38:49 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6aXx-00010Q-6z; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:38:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6aXv-0000zN-7I; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:38:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04853; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:36:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout2.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6akH-0000Ya-6V; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:51:35 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout2.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k17Lax8Z038587; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:36:59 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=Y7sjq9VOHygT4sYCEwhjFtxcufGWYbegCCiC4RrMrdDsO5CouoGV5nZHkRwXyWmv From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Addison Phillips'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:38:45 -0800 Message-ID: <001701c62c2e$df6713b0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C62BEB.D143D3B0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <000901c62c2c$5586d240$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Thread-Index: AcYsKupuOajkpByOQHCJJAJ7nJkMOQAATw6QAACmf2A= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 545b5cafb485cd0d5dfd4e98c7485695 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C62BEB.D143D3B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ... and it helps if I attach the *right one*. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Addison Phillips > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:21 PM > To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > Cc: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] RE: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 > > Dear Editor, > > Please find attached the corrected draft #9 (I previously forgot to change > the year to 2006 from 2005) of draft-ietf-ltru-matching. > > Best Regards, > > Addison (for the editors) > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:10 PM > > To: Addison Phillips > > Subject: Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 > > > > The Secretariat CANNOT process your Internet-Draft submission due to > > following reason(s): > > > > * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: > > > > Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). > > > > > > > > > Dear Editor, > > > > > > Please find attached draft #9 of draft-ietf-ltru-matching in text > format. > > > Fenner's ABNF validator and idnits both ran clean against it. > > > > > > Addison (for the editors) > > > > > > Addison Phillips > > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > > It is not a feature. > > > > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C62BEB.D143D3B0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed.=0A= Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc=0A= Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved) M. Davis, Ed.=0A= Expires: August 10, 2006 Google=0A= February 6, 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Matching of Language Tags=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09=0A= =0A= Status of this Memo=0A= =0A= By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any=0A= applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware=0A= have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes=0A= aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering=0A= Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that=0A= other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-=0A= Drafts.=0A= =0A= Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months=0A= and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any=0A= time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference=0A= material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."=0A= =0A= The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.=0A= =0A= The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.=0A= =0A= This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2006.=0A= =0A= Copyright Notice=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).=0A= =0A= Abstract=0A= =0A= This document describes different mechanisms for comparing, matching,=0A= and evaluating language tags. Possible algorithms for language=0A= negotiation or content selection, filtering, and lookup are=0A= described. This document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (replace=0A= "3066bis" with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC=0A= 1766.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 1]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Table of Contents=0A= =0A= 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3=0A= 2. The Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4=0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5=0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7=0A= 3. Types of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8=0A= 3.2. Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9=0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11=0A= 3.3. Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15=0A= 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19=0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . 20=0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 21=0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 22=0A= 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24=0A= 6. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25=0A= 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26=0A= 8. Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27=0A= 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28=0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29=0A= Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30=0A= Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 31=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 2]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 1. Introduction=0A= =0A= Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of=0A= languages. There are many reasons why one would want to identify the=0A= language used when presenting or requesting information.=0A= =0A= Information about a user's language preferences commonly needs to be=0A= identified so that appropriate processing can be applied. For=0A= example, the user's language preferences in a browser can be used to=0A= select web pages appropriately. Language preferences can also be=0A= used to select among tools (such as dictionaries) to assist in the=0A= processing or understanding of content in different languages.=0A= =0A= Given a set of language identifiers, such as those defined in=0A= [RFC3066bis], various mechanisms can be envisioned for performing=0A= language negotiation and tag matching.=0A= =0A= This document defines a syntax (called a language range (Section 2))=0A= for specifying a user's language preferences, as well as several=0A= schemes for selecting or filtering content by comparing language=0A= ranges to the language tags [RFC3066bis] used to identify the natural=0A= language of that content. Applications, protocols, or specifications=0A= will have varying needs and requirements that affect the choice of a=0A= suitable matching scheme. Depending on the choice of scheme, there=0A= are various options left to the implementation. Protocols that=0A= implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular=0A= choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to=0A= decide.=0A= =0A= This document is divided into three main sections. One describes how=0A= to indicate a user's preferences using language ranges. Then a=0A= section describes various schemes for matching these ranges to a set=0A= of language tags in order to select specific content. There is also=0A= a section that deals with various practical considerations that apply=0A= to implementing and using these schemes.=0A= =0A= This document, in combination with [RFC3066bis] (Ed.: replace=0A= "3066bis" globally in this document with the RFC number assigned to=0A= draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces [RFC3066], which replaced=0A= [RFC1766].=0A= =0A= The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=0A= "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this=0A= document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 3]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 2. The Language Range=0A= =0A= Language Tags [RFC3066bis] are used to identify the language of some=0A= information item or content. Applications or protocols that use=0A= language tags are often faced with the problem of identifying sets of=0A= content that share certain language attributes. For example,=0A= HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] describes one such mechanism in its discussion of=0A= the Accept-Language header (Section 14.4), which is used when=0A= selecting content from servers based on the language of that content.=0A= =0A= When selecting content according to its language, it is useful to=0A= have a mechanism for identifying sets of language tags that share=0A= specific attributes. This allows users to select or filter content=0A= based on specific requirements. Such an identifier is called a=0A= "Language Range".=0A= =0A= Language ranges are similar in structure and content to language=0A= tags: they consist of alphanumeric "subtags" separated by hyphens,=0A= plus a special subtag consisting of the character "*" (%2A,=0A= ASTERISK), which is used in ranges as a "wildcard", that is, a value=0A= that matches any subtag.=0A= =0A= Language tags and thus language ranges are to be treated as case-=0A= insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some=0A= of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning.=0A= Matching of language tags to language ranges MUST be done in a case-=0A= insensitive manner as well.=0A= =0A= 2.1. Basic Language Range=0A= =0A= A "basic language range" identifies the set of content whose language=0A= tags begin with the same sequence of subtags. Each range consists of=0A= a sequence of alphanumeric subtags separated by hyphens. The basic=0A= language range is defined by the following ABNF[RFC4234]:=0A= =0A= language-range =3D language-tag / "*"=0A= language-tag =3D 1*8[alphanum] *["-" 1*8alphanum]=0A= alphanum =3D ALPHA / DIGIT=0A= =0A= Basic language ranges (originally described by HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] and=0A= later [RFC3066]) have the same syntax as an [RFC3066] language tag or=0A= are the single character "*". They differ from the language tags=0A= defined in [RFC3066bis] only in that there is no requirement that=0A= they be "well-formed" or be validated against the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (although such ill-formed ranges will probably not=0A= match anything).=0A= =0A= Use of a basic language range seems to imply that there is a semantic=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 4]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= relationship between language tags that share the same prefix. While=0A= this is often the case, it is not always true and users should note=0A= that the set of language tags that match a specific language-range=0A= may not be mutually intelligible.=0A= =0A= 2.2. Extended Language Range=0A= =0A= A Basic Language Range does not always provide the most appropriate=0A= way to specify a user's preferences. Sometimes it is beneficial to=0A= use a more fine-grained matching scheme that takes advantage of the=0A= internal structure of language tags. This allows the user to=0A= specify, for example, the value of a specific field in a language tag=0A= or to indicate which values are of interest in filtering or selecting=0A= the content.=0A= =0A= In an extended language range, the identifier takes the form of a=0A= series of subtags which MUST consist of well-formed subtags or the=0A= special subtag "*". For example, the language range "en-*-US"=0A= specifies a primary language of 'en', followed by any script subtag,=0A= followed by the region subtag 'US'.=0A= =0A= An extended language range can be represented by the following ABNF:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 5]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= extended-language-range =3D range ; a range=0A= / privateuse ; a private-use range=0A= / grandfathered ; a grandfathered registration=0A= =0A= range =3D (language=0A= ["-" script]=0A= ["-" region]=0A= *("-" variant)=0A= *("-" extension)=0A= ["-" privateuse])=0A= =0A= language =3D (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code=0A= / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use=0A= / 5*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extlang =3D *2("-" 3ALPHA) ("-" ( 3ALPHA / "*"))=0A= ; reserved for future use=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= script =3D 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= region =3D 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code=0A= / 3DIGIT ; UN M.49 code=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= variant =3D 5*8alphanum ; registered variants=0A= / (DIGIT 3alphanum) ;=0A= / "*" ; or wildcard=0A= =0A= extension =3D singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ]=0A= ; extension subtags=0A= ; wildcard can only appear=0A= ; at the end=0A= =0A= singleton =3D %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT=0A= ; single letters (except for "x") or digits=0A= =0A= privateuse =3D "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))=0A= =0A= grandfathered =3D 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))=0A= ; grandfathered registration=0A= ; Note: I is the only singleton=0A= ; that starts a grandfathered tag=0A= =0A= alphanum =3D (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 6]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= A field not present in the middle of an extended language range is=0A= treated as if the field contained a "*". Implementations that=0A= normalize extended language ranges SHOULD expand missing fields to be=0A= "*" so that the semantic meaning of the language range is clear to=0A= the user. At the same time, multiple wildcards in a row are=0A= redundant and implementations SHOULD collapse these to a single=0A= wildcard when normalizing the range (for brevity). For example, both=0A= the range "sl-nedis" and the range "sl-*-*-nedis" are equivalent to=0A= and should be normalized as "sl-*-nedis".=0A= =0A= 2.3. The Language Priority List=0A= =0A= When users specify a language preference they often need to specify a=0A= prioritized list of language ranges in order to best reflect their=0A= language preferences. This is especially true for speakers of=0A= minority languages. A speaker of Breton in France, for example, may=0A= specify "be" followed by "fr", meaning that if Breton is available,=0A= it is preferred, but otherwise French is the best alternative. It=0A= can get more complex: a speaker may wish to fall back from Skolt Sami=0A= to Northern Sami to Finnish.=0A= =0A= A "Language Priority List" is a prioritized or weighted list of=0A= language ranges. One well known example of such a list is the=0A= "Accept-Language" header defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616] (see Section=0A= 14.4) and RFC 3282 [RFC3282]. A simple list of ranges, i.e. one that=0A= contains no weighting information, is considered to be in descending=0A= order of priority.=0A= =0A= The various matching operations described in this document include=0A= considerations for using a language priority list. This document=0A= does not define any syntax for a language priority list; defining=0A= such a syntax is the responsibility of the protocol, application, or=0A= implementation that uses it. When given as examples in this=0A= document, language priority lists will be shown as a quoted sequence=0A= of ranges separated by semi-colons, like this: "en; fr; zh-Hant"=0A= (which would be read as "English before French before Chinese as=0A= written in the Traditional script").=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 7]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 3. Types of Matching=0A= =0A= Matching language ranges to language tags can be done in a number of=0A= different ways. This section describes several different matching=0A= schemes, as well as the considerations for choosing between them.=0A= Protocols and specifications SHOULD clearly indicate the particular=0A= mechanism used in selecting or matching language tags.=0A= =0A= There are two basic types of matching scheme: those that produce zero=0A= or more information items (called "filtering") and those that produce=0A= a single information item for a given request (called "lookup").=0A= =0A= A key difference between these two types of matching scheme is that=0A= the language ranges in the language priority list represent the=0A= _least_ specific content one will accept as a match, while for lookup=0A= operations the language ranges represent the _most_ specific content.=0A= =0A= 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching=0A= =0A= Applications, protocols, and specifications are faced with the=0A= decision of what type of matching to use. Sometimes, different=0A= styles of matching might be suited for different kinds of processing=0A= within a particular application or protocol.=0A= =0A= Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a=0A= complete procedure for the use of language tags. Such procedures are=0A= intimately tied to the application protocol in which they occur.=0A= When specifying a protocol operation using matching, the protocol=0A= MUST specify:=0A= =0A= o Which type(s) of language tag matching it uses=0A= =0A= o Whether the operation returns a single result (lookup) or a=0A= possibly empty set of results (filtering)=0A= =0A= o For lookup, what the result is when no matching tag is found. For=0A= instance, a protocol might result in failure of the operation, an=0A= empty value, returning some protocol defined or implementation=0A= defined default, or returning i-default [RFC2277].=0A= =0A= Filtering can be used to produce a set of results (such as a=0A= collection of documents). For example, if using a search engine, one=0A= might use filtering to limit the results to documents written in=0A= French. It can also be used when deciding whether to perform a=0A= language-sensitive process on some content. For example, a process=0A= might cause paragraphs whose language tag matched the language range=0A= "nl" to be displayed in italics within a document.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 8]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= This document describes four types of matching (three types of=0A= filtering, plus the lookup scheme):=0A= =0A= 1. Basic Filtering (Section 3.2.1) is used to match content using=0A= basic language ranges (Section 2.1).=0A= =0A= 2. Extended Range Filtering (Section 3.2.2) is used to match content=0A= using extended language ranges (Section 2.2).=0A= =0A= 3. Scored Filtering (Section 3.2.3) produces an ordered set of=0A= content using extended language ranges. It SHOULD be used when=0A= the quality of the match within a specific language range is=0A= important, as when presenting a list of documents resulting from=0A= a search.=0A= =0A= 4. Lookup (Section 3.3) is used when each request needs to produce=0A= _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if a process were=0A= to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header,=0A= it might select the text based on the user's language preference.=0A= Since it can return only one item, it must choose a single item=0A= and it must return some item, even if no content matches the=0A= language priority list supplied by the user.=0A= =0A= Most types of matching in this document are designed so that=0A= implementations are not required to validate or understand any of the=0A= semantics of the subtags supplied and, except for scored filtering,=0A= they do not need access to the IANA Language Subtag Registry (see=0A= Section 3 in [RFC3066bis]). This simplifies and speeds the=0A= performance of implementations.=0A= =0A= Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and=0A= implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping=0A= grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents.=0A= If an implementation canonicalizes either ranges or tags, then the=0A= implementation will require the IANA Language Subtag Registry=0A= information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic=0A= information external to the registry when matching tags. For=0A= example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and=0A= 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more=0A= general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer=0A= that content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh-=0A= Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW".=0A= =0A= 3.2. Filtering=0A= =0A= Filtering is used to select the set of content that matches a given=0A= language priority list. It is called "filtering" because this set of=0A= content may contain no items at all or it may return an arbitrarily=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 9]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= large number of matching items: as many items as match the language=0A= priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items.=0A= =0A= In filtering, the language range represents the _least_ specific=0A= (that is, the fewest number of subtags) language tag which is an=0A= acceptable match. That is, all of the language tags in the set of=0A= filtered content will have an equal or greater number of subtags than=0A= the language range. For example, if the language priority list=0A= consists of the range "de-CH", one might see matching content with=0A= the tag "de-CH-1996" but one will never see a match with the tag=0A= "de".=0A= =0A= If the language priority list (see Section 2.3) contains more than=0A= one range, the content returned is typically ordered in descending=0A= level of preference.=0A= =0A= Some examples where filtering might be appropriate include:=0A= =0A= o Applying a style to sections of a document in a particular set of=0A= languages.=0A= =0A= o Displaying the set of documents containing a particular set of=0A= keywords written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= o Selecting all email items written in a specific set of languages.=0A= =0A= Filtering can produce either an ordered or an unordered set of=0A= results. For example, applying formatting to a document based on the=0A= language of specific pieces of content does not require the content=0A= to be ordered. It is sufficient to know whether a specific piece of=0A= content is selected by the language priority list (or not). A search=0A= application, on the other hand, probably would want to order the=0A= results.=0A= =0A= If an ordered set is desired, as described above, then the=0A= application or protocol needs to determine the relative "quality" of=0A= the match between different language tags and the language range.=0A= =0A= This measurement is called a "distance metric". A distance metric=0A= assigns a numeric value to the comparison of a language tag to a=0A= language range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A=0A= distance of zero means that they are identical, a small distance=0A= indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indicates=0A= that they are very different. Using a distance metric,=0A= implementations can, for example, allow users to select a threshold=0A= distance for a match to be "successful" while filtering, or they=0A= might use the numeric values to order the results.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 10]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 3.2.1. Filtering with Basic Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using basic language ranges, each basic language range=0A= in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to=0A= priority. A particular language tag matches a language range if it=0A= exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag=0A= such that the first character following the prefix is "-". (That is,=0A= the language-range "de-de" matches the language tag "de-DE-1996", but=0A= not the language tag "de-Deva".)=0A= =0A= The special range "*" in a language priority list matches any tag. A=0A= protocol which uses language ranges MAY specify additional rules=0A= about the semantics of "*"; for instance, HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616]=0A= specifies that the range "*" matches only languages not matched by=0A= any other range within an "Accept-Language" header.=0A= =0A= 3.2.2. Filtering with Extended Language Ranges=0A= =0A= When filtering using extended language ranges, each extended language=0A= range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according=0A= to priority. The subtags in each extended language range are=0A= compared to the corresponding subtags in the language tag being=0A= examined. The subtag from the range is considered to match if it=0A= exactly matches the corresponding subtag in the tag or the range's=0A= subtag has the value "*" (which matches all subtags, including the=0A= empty subtag).=0A= =0A= Subtags not specified, including those at the end of the language=0A= range, are assigned the wildcard value "*". This makes each range=0A= into a prefix much like that used in basic language range matching.=0A= For example, the extended language range "de-*-DE" matches all of the=0A= following tags, in part because the unspecified variant, extension,=0A= and private-use subtags are expanded to "*":=0A= =0A= de-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE=0A= =0A= de-Latf-DE=0A= =0A= de-DE-x-goethe=0A= =0A= de-Latn-DE-1996=0A= =0A= 3.2.3. Scored Filtering=0A= =0A= Both basic and extended language range filtering produce simple=0A= boolean matches between a language range and a language tag.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 11]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Sometimes it may be useful to provide an array of results with=0A= different levels of matching, for example, sorting results based on=0A= the overall "quality" of the match. Scored (or "distance metric")=0A= filtering provides a way to generate these quality values.=0A= =0A= As with the other forms of filtering, the process considers each=0A= language range in the language priority list in order of priority.=0A= =0A= Each extended language range and language tag MUST first be=0A= canonicalized by mapping grandfathered and obsolete tags into modern=0A= equivalents. This requires the information in the IANA Language=0A= Subtag Registry (see Section 3 of [RFC3066bis]).=0A= =0A= The language range and each language tag it is to be compared to are=0A= then transformed into a "quintuple" consisting of five "elements" in=0A= the form (language, script, country, variant, extension).=0A= =0A= Any extended language subtags are considered part of the language=0A= "element". For example, the language element for the tag "zh-cmn-=0A= Hans" would be "zh-cmn".=0A= =0A= Private-use subtag sequences are considered part of the language=0A= "element" if in the initial position in the tag and part of the=0A= variant "element" if not. The different handling of private-use=0A= sequences prevents a range such as "x-twain" from matching all=0A= possible tags, while a range such as "en-US-x-twain" would closely=0A= match nearly all tags for English as used in the United States.=0A= =0A= Language subtags 'und', 'mul', and the script subtag 'Zyyy' are=0A= converted to "*": these subtag values represent undetermined,=0A= multiple, or private-use values which are consistent with the use of=0A= the wildcard.=0A= =0A= For language tags that have no script subtag but whose language=0A= subtag's record in the IANA Language Subtag Registry contains the=0A= field "Suppress-Script", the script element in the quintuple MUST be=0A= set to the script subtag in the Suppress-Script field. This is=0A= necessary because [RFC3066bis] strongly recommends that users not use=0A= this subtag to form language tags and this document (see Section 4.1)=0A= recommends that users not use them to form ranges. Languages which=0A= have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are predominantly=0A= written in that single script, making the subtag redundant in forming=0A= a language tag or range. Thus if the script were not expanded in=0A= this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a more-distant=0A= score for content that happened to be labeled "de-Latn-DE" than users=0A= would expect that it should.=0A= =0A= Any remaining missing components in the language tag are set to "*";=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 12]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= thus an empty language tag becomes the quintuple ("*", "*", "*", "*",=0A= "*"). Missing components in the language range are handled similarly=0A= to extended range lookup: missing internal subtags are expanded to=0A= "*". Missing end subtags are expanded as the empty string. Thus a=0A= pattern "en-US" becomes the quintuple ("en","*","US","","").=0A= =0A= Here are some examples of language tags, showing their quintuples as=0A= both language tags and language ranges:=0A= =0A= en-US=0A= Tag: (en, *, US, *, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, US, "", "")=0A= =0A= sr-Latn=0A= Tag: (sr, Latn, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (sr, Latn, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= zh-cmn-Hant=0A= Tag: (zh-cmn, Hant, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (zh-cmn, Hant, "", "", "")=0A= =0A= x-foo=0A= Tag: (x-foo, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (x-foo, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= en-x-foo=0A= Tag: (en, *, *, x-foo, *)=0A= Range: (en, *, *, x-foo, "")=0A= =0A= i-default=0A= Tag: (i-default, *, *, *, *)=0A= Range: (i-default, "", "", "", "")=0A= =0A= sl-Latn-IT-rozaj=0A= Tag: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, *)=0A= Range: (sl, Latn, IT, rozaj, "")=0A= =0A= zh-r-wadegile (hypothetical)=0A= Tag: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= Range: (zh, *, *, *, r-wadegile)=0A= =0A= Figure 3: Examples of Distance Metric Quintuples=0A= =0A= Each pair of quintuples being compared is assigned a distance value,=0A= in which small values indicate better matches and large values=0A= indicate worse ones. The distance between the pair is the sum of the=0A= distances for each of the corresponding elements of the quintuple.=0A= If the elements are identical or one is '*', then the distance value=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 13]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= between them is zero. Otherwise, it is given by the following table:=0A= 256 language mismatch=0A= 128 script mismatch=0A= 32 region mismatch=0A= 4 variant mismatch=0A= 1 extension mismatch=0A= =0A= A value of 0 is a perfect match; 421 is no match at all. Different=0A= threshold values might be appropriate for different applications or=0A= protocols. Implementations will usually allow users to choose the=0A= most appropriate selection value, ranking the matched items based on=0A= score.=0A= =0A= Examples of various tag's distances from the range "en-US":=0A= =0A= "fr-FR" 384 (language & region mismatch)=0A= "fr" 256 (language mismatch, region match)=0A= "en-GB" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-Latn-US" 0 (all fields match)=0A= "en-Brai" 32 (region mismatch)=0A= "en-US-x-foo" 4 (variant mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= "en-US-r-wadegile" 1 (extension mismatch: range is the empty string)=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list follows the syntax of the "Accept-=0A= Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and=0A= [RFC3282], language ranges without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language range in the list (processing=0A= from first to last). If the first language range has no Q value, it=0A= is given a value of 1.0. Language ranges with Q values of zero are=0A= removed. For example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes=0A= "fr;q=3D1.0,en;q=3D0.5,de;q=3D0.5,it;q=3D0.5". The distance values = given=0A= above are then divided by the Q values. For example, if that=0A= language tag "fr-FR" has a distance of 384 from a language range with=0A= a Q value of 0.8, then the resulting distance is 480 (384 div 0.8).=0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different weighting systems than=0A= the ones described above, as long as the weightings and weighting=0A= mechanisms are clearly specified. Thus, for example, an=0A= implementation or protocol could give all language tags with missing=0A= Q values a value of 1.0, or give the distance value 1000 to a=0A= language mismatch. They MAY also use more sophisticated weights that=0A= depend on the values of the corresponding elements. For example, an=0A= implementation might give a small distance to the difference closely=0A= related subtags. Some examples of closely related subtags might be:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 14]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Language:=0A= no (Norwegian)=0A= nb (Bokmal Norwegian)=0A= nn (Nynorsk Norwegian)=0A= =0A= Script:=0A= Kata (katakana)=0A= Hira (hiragana)=0A= =0A= Region:=0A= US (United States of America)=0A= UM (United States Minor Outlying Islands)=0A= =0A= Figure 6: Examples of Closely Related Subtags=0A= =0A= 3.3. Lookup=0A= =0A= Lookup is used to select the single information item that best=0A= matches the language priority list for a given request. When=0A= performing lookup, each language range in the language priority list=0A= is considered in turn, according to priority. By contrast with=0A= filtering, each language ranges represents the _most_ specific tag=0A= which is an acceptable match. The first information item found with=0A= a matching tag, according the user's priority, is considered the=0A= closest match and is the item returned. For example, if the language=0A= range is "de-CH", one might expect to receive an information item=0A= with the tag "de" but never one with the tag "de-CH-1996". Usually=0A= if no content matches the request, a "default" item is returned.=0A= =0A= For example, if an application inserts some dynamic content into a=0A= document, returning an empty string if there is no exact match is not=0A= an option. Instead, the application "falls back" until it finds a=0A= suitable piece of content to insert. Other examples of lookup might=0A= include:=0A= =0A= o Selection of a template containing the text for an automated email=0A= response.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a item containing some text for inclusion in a=0A= particular Web page.=0A= =0A= o Selection of a string of text for inclusion in an error log.=0A= =0A= In the lookup scheme, the language range is progressively truncated=0A= from the end until a matching piece of content is located. For=0A= example, starting with the range "zh-Hant-CN-x-private", the lookup=0A= progressively searches for content as shown below:=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 15]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Range to match: zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 1. zh-Hant-CN-x-private=0A= 2. zh-Hant-CN=0A= 3. zh-Hant=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (default content or the empty tag)=0A= =0A= Figure 7: Example of a Lookup Fallback Pattern=0A= =0A= This scheme allows some flexibility in finding content. For example,=0A= it provides better results for cases in which data is not available=0A= that exactly matches the user request than if the default language=0A= for the system or content were returned immediately. Not every=0A= specific level of tag granularity is usually available or language=0A= content may be sparsely populated, so "falling back" through the=0A= subtag sequence provides more opportunity to find a match between=0A= available content and the user's request.=0A= =0A= The default content is implementation defined. It might be content=0A= with no language tag; might have an empty value (the built-in=0A= attribute xml:lang in [XML10] permits the empty value); might be a=0A= particular language designated for that bit of content; or it might=0A= be content that is labeled with the tag "i-default" (see [RFC2277]).=0A= When performing lookup using a language priority list, the=0A= progressive search MUST proceed to consider each language range in=0A= the list before finding the default content or empty tag.=0A= =0A= One common way for an application or implementation to provide for=0A= default content is to allow a specific language range to be set as=0A= the default for a specific type of request. This language range is=0A= then treated as if it were appended to the end of the language=0A= priority list as a whole, rather than after each item in the language=0A= priority list.=0A= =0A= For example, if a particular user's language priority list were=0A= "fr-FR; zh-Hant" and the program doing the matching had a default=0A= language range of "ja-JP", the program would search for content as=0A= follows:=0A= 1. fr-FR=0A= 2. fr=0A= 3. zh-Hant // next language=0A= 4. zh=0A= 5. (search for the default content)=0A= a. ja-JP=0A= b. ja=0A= c. (implementation defined default)=0A= =0A= Figure 8: Lookup Using a Language Priority List=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 16]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations SHOULD ignore extensions and unrecognized private-use=0A= subtags when performing lookup, since these subtags are usually=0A= orthogonal to the user's request.=0A= =0A= The special language range "*" matches any language tag. In the=0A= lookup scheme, this range does not convey enough information by=0A= itself to determine which content is most appropriate, since it=0A= matches everything. If the language range "*" is the only one in the=0A= language priority list, it matches the default content. If the=0A= language range "*" is followed by other language ranges, it should be=0A= skipped.=0A= =0A= In some cases, the language priority list might contain one or more=0A= extended language ranges (as, for example, when the same language=0A= priority list is used as input for both lookup and filtering=0A= operations). Wildcard values in an extended language range normally=0A= match any value that occurs in that position in a language tag.=0A= Since only one item can be returned for any given lookup request,=0A= wildcards in a language range have to be processed in a consistent=0A= manner or the same request will produce widely varying results.=0A= Implementations that accept extended language ranges MUST define=0A= which content is returned when more than one item matches the=0A= extended language range.=0A= =0A= For example, an implementation could return the matching content that=0A= is first in ASCII-order. For example, if the language range were=0A= "*-CH" and the set of content included "de-CH", "fr-CH", and "it-CH",=0A= then the content labeled "de-CH" would be returned.=0A= =0A= Implementations MAY also map extended language ranges to basic=0A= language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range=0A= is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each=0A= wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were=0A= "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US".=0A= =0A= Where a language priority list contains Q values as in the syntax of=0A= the "Accept-Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4)=0A= and [RFC3282], language tags without a Q value are given values equal=0A= to the value of the previous language tag (processing from first to=0A= last). If the first language tag has no Q value, it is given a value=0A= of 1.0. Then language tags with zero Q values are removed. For=0A= example, "fr, en;q=3D0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=3D1.0, en;q=3D0.5,=0A= de;q=3D0.5, it;q=3D0.5". The language priority list is then sorted = from=0A= highest priority to lowest, whereby any two language tags with the=0A= same Q values are remain in the same order as in the original=0A= language priority list. This list is then traversed as described=0A= above in doing lookup.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 17]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Implementations or protocols MAY use different lookup mechanisms=0A= systems than the ones described above, as long as those mechanisms=0A= are clearly specified.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 18]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 4. Other Considerations=0A= =0A= When working with language ranges and matching schemes, there are=0A= some additional points that may influence the choice of either.=0A= =0A= 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges=0A= =0A= Users indicate their language preferences via the choice of a=0A= language range or the list of language ranges in a language priority=0A= list. The type of matching affects what the best choice is for a=0A= given user.=0A= =0A= Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning=0A= of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually=0A= compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being=0A= matched, using basic string processing.=0A= =0A= Users SHOULD avoid subtags that add no distinguishing value to a=0A= language range. Generally, the fewer subtags that appear in the=0A= language range, the more content the range will match.=0A= =0A= Most notably, script subtags SHOULD NOT be used to form a language=0A= range in combination with language subtags that have a matching=0A= Suppress-Script field in their registry entry. Thus the language=0A= range "en-Latn" is probably inappropriate in most cases (because the=0A= vast majority of English documents are written in the Latin script=0A= and thus the 'en' language subtag has a Suppress-Script field for=0A= 'Latn' in the registry).=0A= =0A= When working with tags and ranges, note that extensions and most=0A= private-use subtags are orthogonal to language tag matching, in that=0A= they specify additional attributes of the text not related to the=0A= goals of most matching schemes. Users SHOULD avoid using these=0A= subtags in language ranges, since they interfere with the selection=0A= of available content. When used in language tags (as opposed to=0A= ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering=0A= (Section 3), since they appear at the end of the tag and will match=0A= all prefixes.=0A= =0A= When working with language tags and language ranges note that:=0A= =0A= o Private-use and Extension subtags are normally orthogonal to=0A= language tag fallback. Implementations or specifications that use=0A= a lookup (Section 3.3) matching scheme often ignore unrecognized=0A= private-use and extension subtags when performing language tag=0A= fallback. In addition, since these subtags are always at the end=0A= of the sequence of subtags, their use in language tags normally=0A= doesn't interfere with the use of ranges that omit them in the=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 19]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= filtering (Section 3.2) matching schemes described below.=0A= However, they do interfere with filtering when used in language=0A= ranges and SHOULD be avoided in ranges as a result.=0A= =0A= o Applications, specifications, or protocols that choose not to=0A= interpret one or more private-use or extension subtags SHOULD NOT=0A= remove or modify these extensions in content that they are=0A= processing. When a language tag instance is to be used in a=0A= specific, known protocol, and is not being passed through to other=0A= protocols, language tags MAY be filtered to remove subtags and=0A= extensions that are not supported by that protocol. Such=0A= filtering SHOULD be avoided, if possible, since it removes=0A= information that might be relevant to services on the other end of=0A= the protocol that would make use of that information.=0A= =0A= o Some applications of language tags might want or need to consider=0A= extensions and private-use subtags when matching tags. If=0A= extensions and private-use subtags are included in a matching or=0A= filtering process that utilizes one of the schemes described in=0A= this document, then the implementation SHOULD canonicalize the=0A= language tags and/or ranges before performing the matching. Note=0A= that language tag processors that claim to be "well-formed"=0A= processors as defined in [RFC3066bis] generally fall into this=0A= category.=0A= =0A= 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges=0A= =0A= Selecting content using language ranges requires some understanding=0A= by users of what they are selecting. A language tag or range=0A= identifies a language as spoken (or written, signed or otherwise=0A= signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other=0A= human beings.=0A= =0A= If a language tag B contains language tag A as a prefix, then B is=0A= typically "narrower" or "more specific" than A. For example, "zh-=0A= Hant-TW" is more specific than "zh-Hant".=0A= =0A= This relationship is not guaranteed in all cases: specifically,=0A= languages that begin with the same sequence of subtags are NOT=0A= guaranteed to be mutually intelligible, although they might be.=0A= =0A= For example, the tag "az" shares a prefix with both "az-Latn"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Latin script) and "az-Arab"=0A= (Azerbaijani written using the Arabic script). A person fluent in=0A= one script might not be able to read the other, even though the text=0A= might be otherwise identical. Content tagged as "az" most probably=0A= is written in just one script and thus might not be intelligible to a=0A= reader familiar with the other script.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 20]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Variant subtags in particular seem to represent specific divisions in=0A= mutual understanding, since they often encode dialects or other=0A= idiosyncratic variations within a language. They also seem to=0A= represent relatively low divisions with a high chance of at least=0A= limited understanding, although this depends on the specific variant=0A= in question.=0A= =0A= The relationship between the language tag and the information it=0A= relates to is defined by the standard describing the context in which=0A= it appears. Accordingly, this section can only give possible=0A= examples of its usage:=0A= =0A= o For a single information object, the associated language tags=0A= might be interpreted as the set of languages that are necessary=0A= for a complete comprehension of the complete object. Example:=0A= Plain text documents.=0A= =0A= o For an aggregation of information objects, the associated language=0A= tags could be taken as the set of languages used inside components=0A= of that aggregation. Examples: Document stores and libraries.=0A= =0A= o For information objects whose purpose is to provide alternatives,=0A= the associated language tags could be regarded as a hint that the=0A= content is provided in several languages, and that one has to=0A= inspect each of the alternatives in order to find its language or=0A= languages. In this case, the presence of multiple tags might not=0A= mean that one needs to be multi-lingual to get complete=0A= understanding of the document. Example: MIME multipart/=0A= alternative.=0A= =0A= o In markup languages, such as HTML and XML, language information=0A= can be added to each part of the document identified by the markup=0A= structure (including the whole document itself). For example, one=0A= could write C'est la vie. inside a=0A= Norwegian document; the Norwegian-speaking user could then access=0A= a French-Norwegian dictionary to find out what the marked section=0A= meant. If the user were listening to that document through a=0A= speech synthesis interface, this formation could be used to signal=0A= the synthesizer to appropriately apply French text-to-speech=0A= pronunciation rules to that span of text, instead of misapplying=0A= the Norwegian rules.=0A= =0A= 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags=0A= =0A= Private-use subtags require private agreement between the parties=0A= that intend to use or exchange language tags that use them and great=0A= caution SHOULD be used in employing them in content or protocols=0A= intended for general use. Private-use subtags are simply useless for=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 21]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= information exchange without prior arrangement.=0A= =0A= The value and semantic meaning of private-use tags and of the subtags=0A= used within such a language tag are not defined. Matching private-=0A= use tags using language ranges or extended language ranges can result=0A= in unpredictable content being returned.=0A= =0A= 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching=0A= =0A= RFC 3066 [RFC3066] did not provide an upper limit on the size of=0A= language tags or ranges. RFC 3066 did define the semantics of=0A= particular subtags in such a way that most language tags or ranges=0A= consisted of language and region subtags with a combined total length=0A= of up to six characters. Larger tags and ranges (in terms of both=0A= subtags and characters) did exist, however.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis] also does not impose a fixed upper limit on the number=0A= of subtags in a language tag or range (and thus an upper bound on the=0A= size of either). The syntax in that document suggests that,=0A= depending on the specific language or range of languages, more=0A= subtags (and thus characters) are sometimes necessary as a result.=0A= Length considerations and their impact on the selection and=0A= processing of tags are described in Section 2.1.1 of that document.=0A= =0A= An application or protocol MAY choose to limit the length of the=0A= language tags or ranges used in matching. Any such limitation SHOULD=0A= be clearly documented, and such documentation SHOULD include the=0A= disposition of any longer tags or ranges (for example, whether an=0A= error value is generated or the language tag or range is truncated).=0A= If truncation is permitted it MUST NOT permit a subtag to be divided,=0A= since this changes the semantics of the subtag being matched and can=0A= result in false positives or negatives.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols that restrict storage SHOULD consider the=0A= impact of tag or range truncation on the resulting matches. For=0A= example, removing the "*" from the end of an extended language range=0A= (see Section 2.2) can greatly modify the set of returned matches. A=0A= protocol that allows tags or ranges to be truncated at an arbitrary=0A= limit, without giving any indication of what that limit is, has the=0A= potential for causing harm by changing the meaning of values in=0A= substantial ways.=0A= =0A= In practice, most tags do not require additional subtags or=0A= substantially more characters. Additional subtags sometimes add=0A= useful distinguishing information, but extraneous subtags interfere=0A= with the meaning, understanding, and especially matching of language=0A= tags. Since language tags or ranges MAY be truncated by an=0A= application or protocol that limits storage, when choosing language=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 22]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= tags or ranges users and applications SHOULD avoid adding subtags=0A= that add no distinguishing value. In particular, users and=0A= implementations SHOULD follow the 'Prefix' and 'Suppress-Script'=0A= fields in the registry (defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC3066bis]):=0A= these fields provide guidance on when specific additional subtags=0A= SHOULD (and SHOULD NOT) be used.=0A= =0A= Implementations MUST support a limit of at least 33 characters. This=0A= limit includes at least one subtag of each non-extension, non-private=0A= use type. When choosing a buffer limit, a length of at least 42=0A= characters is strongly RECOMMENDED.=0A= =0A= The practical limit on tags or ranges derived solely from registered=0A= values is 42 characters. Implementations MUST be able to handle tags=0A= and ranges of this length. Support for tags and ranges of at least=0A= 62 characters in length is RECOMMENDED. Implementations MAY support=0A= longer values, including matching extensive sets of private-use or=0A= extension subtags.=0A= =0A= Applications or protocols which have to truncate a tag MUST do so by=0A= progressively removing subtags along with their preceding "-" from=0A= the right side of the language tag until the tag is short enough for=0A= the given buffer. If the resulting tag ends with a single-character=0A= subtag, that subtag and its preceding "-" MUST also be removed. For=0A= example:=0A= =0A= Tag to truncate: zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1=0A= 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile=0A= 2. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1=0A= 3. zh-Latn-CN-variant1=0A= 4. zh-Latn-CN=0A= 5. zh-Latn=0A= 6. zh=0A= =0A= Figure 9: Example of Tag Truncation=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 23]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 5. IANA Considerations=0A= =0A= This document presents no new or existing considerations for IANA.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 24]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 6. Changes=0A= =0A= This is the first version of this document.=0A= =0A= The following changes were put into this document since draft-07:=0A= =0A= Added a mention of "*" to the Character Set Considerations section=0A= (D.Ewell)=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 25]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 7. Security Considerations=0A= =0A= Language ranges used in content negotiation might be used to infer=0A= the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential targets=0A= for surveillance. In addition, unique or highly unusual language=0A= ranges or combinations of language ranges might be used to track a=0A= specific individual's activities.=0A= =0A= This is a special case of the general problem that anything you send=0A= is visible to the receiving party. It is useful to be aware that=0A= such concerns can exist in some cases.=0A= =0A= The evaluation of the exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible=0A= countermeasures, is left to each application or protocol.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 26]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 8. Character Set Considerations=0A= =0A= Language tags permit only the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and HYPHEN-=0A= MINUS (%x2D). Language ranges also use the character ASTERISK=0A= (%x2A). These characters are present in most character sets, so=0A= presentation or exchange of language tags or ranges should not be=0A= constrained by character set issues.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 27]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= 9. References=0A= =0A= 9.1. Normative References=0A= =0A= [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate=0A= Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.=0A= =0A= [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and=0A= Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066bis]=0A= Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for the=0A= Identification of Languages", October 2005, .=0A= =0A= [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax=0A= Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.=0A= =0A= 9.2. Informative References=0A= =0A= [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.=0A= =0A= [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,=0A= Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext=0A= Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.=0A= =0A= [RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of=0A= Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.=0A= =0A= [RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282,=0A= May 2002.=0A= =0A= [XML10] Bray (et al), T., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0",=0A= 02 2004.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 28]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Appendix A. Acknowledgements=0A= =0A= Any list of contributors is bound to be incomplete; please regard the=0A= following as only a selection from the group of people who have=0A= contributed to make this document what it is today.=0A= =0A= The contributors to [RFC3066bis], [RFC3066] and [RFC1766], each of=0A= which is a precursor to this document, made enormous contributions=0A= directly or indirectly to this document and are generally responsible=0A= for the success of language tags.=0A= =0A= The following people (in alphabetical order by family name)=0A= contributed to this document:=0A= =0A= Harald Alvestrand, Jeremy Carroll, John Cowan, Martin Duerst, Frank=0A= Ellermann, Doug Ewell, Marion Gunn, Kent Karlsson, Ira McDonald, M.=0A= Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many,=0A= many others.=0A= =0A= Very special thanks must go to Harald Tveit Alvestrand, who=0A= originated RFCs 1766 and 3066, and without whom this document would=0A= not have been possible.=0A= =0A= For this particular document, John Cowan originated the scheme=0A= described in Section 3.2.3. Mark Davis originated the scheme=0A= described in the Section 3.3.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 29]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Authors' Addresses=0A= =0A= Addison Phillips (editor)=0A= Yahoo! Inc=0A= =0A= Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= Mark Davis (editor)=0A= Google=0A= =0A= Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 30]=0A= =0C=0A= Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006=0A= =0A= =0A= Intellectual Property Statement=0A= =0A= The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any=0A= Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to=0A= pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in=0A= this document or the extent to which any license under such rights=0A= might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has=0A= made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information=0A= on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be=0A= found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.=0A= =0A= Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any=0A= assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an=0A= attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of=0A= such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this=0A= specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at=0A= http://www.ietf.org/ipr.=0A= =0A= The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any=0A= copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary=0A= rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement=0A= this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at=0A= ietf-ipr@ietf.org.=0A= =0A= =0A= Disclaimer of Validity=0A= =0A= This document and the information contained herein are provided on an=0A= "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS=0A= OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET=0A= ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,=0A= INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE=0A= INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED=0A= WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.=0A= =0A= =0A= Copyright Statement=0A= =0A= Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject=0A= to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and=0A= except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.=0A= =0A= =0A= Acknowledgment=0A= =0A= Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the=0A= Internet Society.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Phillips & Davis Expires August 10, 2006 [Page 31]=0A= =0C=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C62BEB.D143D3B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C62BEB.D143D3B0-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 17:29:18 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6bKo-0003If-G4; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:29:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6bKm-0003Et-FE for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:29:16 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07606 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:27:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F6bKD-0008Op-Ap for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:28:41 +0100 Received: from 1cust84.tnt4.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.70.84]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:28:41 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust84.tnt4.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:28:41 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:22:43 +0100 Organization: Lines: 240 Message-ID: <43E91DB3.3895@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <000901c62c2c$5586d240$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> <001701c62c2e$df6713b0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust84.tnt4.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips wrote: > it helps if I attach the *right one*. :-) See below for an old-fashioned plain "diff" based on xml2rfc unpaginated output, I still got a "February 2005" edition of the XML source. Bye 6c6 < Internet-Draft Quest Software --- > Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc 8,9c8,9 < Expires: June 10, 2006 IBM < December 7, 2005 --- > Expires: August 10, 2005 Google > February 6, 2005 13c13 < draft-ietf-ltru-matching-08 --- > draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09 38c38 < This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2006. --- > This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2005. 111,113c111,113 < implement a matching scheme either need to choose a particular option < or indicate that the particular options is left to the specific < implementation to decide. --- > implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular > choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to > decide. 147a148,153 > Language ranges are similar in structure and content to language > tags: they consist of alphanumeric "subtags" separated by hyphens, > plus a special subtag consisting of the character "*" (%2A, > ASTERISK), which is used in ranges as a "wildcard", that is, a value > that matches any subtag. > 159c165 < language range is defined by the following the ABNF[RFC4234]: --- > language range is defined by the following ABNF[RFC4234]: 198,199c204,205 < / privateuse ; private-use tag < / grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations --- > / privateuse ; a private-use range > / grandfathered ; a grandfathered registration 211c217 < / "*" ; ... or wildcard --- > / "*" ; or wildcard 223c229 < / "*" ; ... or wildcard --- > / "*" ; or wildcard 227c233 < / "*" ; ... or wildcard --- > / "*" ; or wildcard 234,235c240,241 < singleton = "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9" < ; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use --- > singleton = "a" - "w" / "y" - "z" / DIGIT > ; single characters, "x" is reserved for private use 237c243 < privateuse = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum)) --- > privateuse = "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum)) 349,351c355,357 < _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if process were to < insert a human readable error message into a protocol header, it < might select the text based on the user's language preference. --- > _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if a process were > to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header, > it might select the text based on the user's language preference. 362a369,371 > Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and > implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping > grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents. 365,371c374,380 < information for that purpose. Implementations MAY use semantic < information external to the registry when matching tags. For < example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and < 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more < general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer th < at content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh- < Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW". --- > information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic > information external to the registry when matching tags. For ex > ample, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and 'nb' > (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more general > subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer that > content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh-Hans" > than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW". 378,380c387,388 < large number of matching items--as many as match the language range < used to specify the items, thus filtering out the non-matching < content. --- > large number of matching items: as many items as match the language > priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items. 419c427 < language range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A --- > languag e range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A 421c429 < indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indic ates --- > indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indicates 458,459c466,467 < following tags because the unspecified variant field is expanded to < "*": --- > following tags, in part because the unspecified variant, extension, > and private-use subtags are expanded to "*": 499c507 < sequences prevents a range such as "x-twain" from m atching all --- > sequences p revents a range such as "x-twain" from matching all 513,519c521,528 < this subtag to form language tags and this document recommends that < users not use them to form ranges. For example, if the script were < not expanded in this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a < more-distant score for content that happened to be labeled < "de-Latn-DE" than users would expect that it should. Note that < languages which have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are < predominantly written in a single script. --- > this subtag to form language tags and this document (see Section 4.1) > recommends that users not use them to form ranges. Languages which > have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are predominantly > written in that single script, making the subtag redundant in forming > a language tag or range. Thus if the script were not expanded in > this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a more-distant > score for content that happened to be labeled "de-Latn-DE" than users > would expect that it should. 593,599c602,622 < Note: A variation of this algorithm might vary the scoring used < overall or for specific values. For example, sometimes it might make < sense to use more sophisticated weighting that depends on the values < of the corresponding elements. Thus, depending on the domain, an < implementation might assign a smaller distance to the difference < between closely related subtags (or treat certain values as equal). < Some examples of closely related subtags might be: --- > Where a language priority list follows the syntax of the "Accept- > Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and > [RFC3282], language ranges without a Q value are given values equal > to the value of the previous language range in the list (processing > from first to last). If the first language range has no Q value, it > is given a value of 1.0. Language ranges with Q values of zero are > removed. For example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes > "fr;q=1.0,en;q=0.5,de;q=0.5,it;q=0.5". The distance values given > above are then divided by the Q values. For example, if that > language tag "fr-FR" has a distance of 384 from a language range with > a Q value of 0.8, then the resulting distance is 480 (384 div 0.8). > > Implementations or protocols MAY use different weighting systems than > the ones described above, as long as the weightings and weighting > mechanisms are clearly specified. Thus, for example, an > implementation or protocol could give all language tags with missing > Q values a value of 1.0, or give the distance value 1000 to a > language mismatch. They MAY also use more sophisticated weights that > depend on the values of the corresponding elements. For example, an > implementation might give a small distance to the difference closely > related subtags. Some examples of closely related subtags might be: 727,732c750,771 < Another way an implementation could address extended language ranges < would be to map them to basic language ranges: if the first subtag is < a "*" then the entire range is treated as "*" (which matches the < default content), otherwise the wildcard subtag is removed. For < example, if the language range were "en-*-US", then the range would < be mapped to "en-US". --- > Implementations MAY also map extended language ranges to basic > language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range > is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each > wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were > "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US". > > Where a language priority list contains Q values as in the syntax of > the "Accept-Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) > and [RFC3282], language tags without a Q value are given values equal > to the value of the previous language tag (processing from first to > last). If the first language tag has no Q value, it is given a value > of 1.0. Then language tags with zero Q values are removed. For > example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=1.0, en;q=0.5, > de;q=0.5, it;q=0.5". The language priority list is then sorted from > highest priority to lowest, whereby any two language tags with the > same Q values are remain in the same order as in the original > language priority list. This list is then traversed as described > above in doing lookup. > > Implementations or protocols MAY use different lookup mechanisms > systems than the ones described above, as long as those mechanisms > are clearly specified. 747,750c786,789 < Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semanti c < meaning of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is < usually compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag < being matched, using basic string processing. --- > Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning > of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually > compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being > matched, using basic string processing. 770c809 < ranges), these subtags normally do not interefer with filtering --- > ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering 1059c1098,1099 < Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, and many, many others. --- > Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many, > many others. 1073c1113 < Quest Software --- > Yahoo! Inc 1075c1115 < Email: addison dot phillips at quest dot com --- > Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com 1079c1119 < IBM --- > Google 1081c1121 < Email: mark dot davis at ibm dot com --- > Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 17:38:04 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6bTI-0007DT-Bv; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:38:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6bTG-0007BO-Uq for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:38:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08122 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:36:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout2.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6bff-0002HF-7G for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout2.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k17MZYLx060237; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:35:34 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=hYKYHsu4xohS5TvqIQU369auBlEgRzRgyC3r8++VGla9kP+5NHPSUcJJKix+2l+D From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Frank Ellermann'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:37:21 -0800 Message-ID: <003201c62c37$0f0e0bc0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <43E91DB3.3895@xyzzy.claranet.de> Thread-Index: AcYsNhzRww6KAPvxRbetbVAs0Fv7ewAAISZg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bfe538a859d88717fa3c8a6377d62f90 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi Frank, ... because I hadn't updated inter-locale.com yet. The actual text file submitted is correct. Uploading is now complete. Try diff again now (and don't forget to refresh). Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Frank Ellermann > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 2:23 PM > To: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 > > Addison Phillips wrote: > > > it helps if I attach the *right one*. > > :-) See below for an old-fashioned plain "diff" > based on xml2rfc unpaginated output, I still got > a "February 2005" edition of the XML source. Bye > > 6c6 > < Internet-Draft Quest Software > --- > > Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc > 8,9c8,9 > < Expires: June 10, 2006 IBM > < December 7, 2005 > --- > > Expires: August 10, 2005 Google > > February 6, 2005 > 13c13 > < draft-ietf-ltru-matching-08 > --- > > draft-ietf-ltru-matching-09 > 38c38 > < This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2006. > --- > > This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2005. > 111,113c111,113 > < implement a matching scheme either need to choose a particular option > < or indicate that the particular options is left to the specific > < implementation to decide. > --- > > implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular > > choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to > > decide. > 147a148,153 > > Language ranges are similar in structure and content to language > > tags: they consist of alphanumeric "subtags" separated by hyphens, > > plus a special subtag consisting of the character "*" (%2A, > > ASTERISK), which is used in ranges as a "wildcard", that is, a value > > that matches any subtag. > > > 159c165 > < language range is defined by the following the ABNF[RFC4234]: > --- > > language range is defined by the following ABNF[RFC4234]: > 198,199c204,205 > < / privateuse ; private-use tag > < / grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations > --- > > / privateuse ; a private-use range > > / grandfathered ; a grandfathered registration > 211c217 > < / "*" ; ... or wildcard > --- > > / "*" ; or wildcard > 223c229 > < / "*" ; ... or wildcard > --- > > / "*" ; or wildcard > 227c233 > < / "*" ; ... or wildcard > --- > > / "*" ; or wildcard > 234,235c240,241 > < singleton = "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9" > < ; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use > --- > > singleton = "a" - "w" / "y" - "z" / DIGIT > > ; single characters, "x" is reserved for private use > 237c243 > < privateuse = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum)) > --- > > privateuse = "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum)) > 349,351c355,357 > < _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if process were to > < insert a human readable error message into a protocol header, it > < might select the text based on the user's language preference. > --- > > _exactly_ one piece of content. For example, if a process were > > to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header, > > it might select the text based on the user's language preference. > 362a369,371 > > Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and > > implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping > > grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents. > 365,371c374,380 > < information for that purpose. Implementations MAY use semantic > < information external to the registry when matching tags. For > < example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and > < 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more > < general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer th > < at content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh- > < Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW". > --- > > information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic > > information external to the registry when matching tags. For ex > > ample, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and 'nb' > > (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more general > > subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer that > > content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh-Hans" > > than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW". > 378,380c387,388 > < large number of matching items--as many as match the language range > < used to specify the items, thus filtering out the non-matching > < content. > --- > > large number of matching items: as many items as match the language > > priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items. > 419c427 > < language range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A > --- > > languag e range that represents the 'distance' between the two. A > 421c429 > < indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indic ates > --- > > indicates that they are very similar, and a large distance indicates > 458,459c466,467 > < following tags because the unspecified variant field is expanded to > < "*": > --- > > following tags, in part because the unspecified variant, extension, > > and private-use subtags are expanded to "*": > 499c507 > < sequences prevents a range such as "x-twain" from m atching all > --- > > sequences p revents a range such as "x-twain" from matching all > 513,519c521,528 > < this subtag to form language tags and this document recommends that > < users not use them to form ranges. For example, if the script were > < not expanded in this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a > < more-distant score for content that happened to be labeled > < "de-Latn-DE" than users would expect that it should. Note that > < languages which have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are > < predominantly written in a single script. > --- > > this subtag to form language tags and this document (see Section 4.1) > > recommends that users not use them to form ranges. Languages which > > have a "Suppress-Script" field in the registry are predominantly > > written in that single script, making the subtag redundant in forming > > a language tag or range. Thus if the script were not expanded in > > this manner, a range such as "de-DE" would produce a more-distant > > score for content that happened to be labeled "de-Latn-DE" than users > > would expect that it should. > 593,599c602,622 > < Note: A variation of this algorithm might vary the scoring used > < overall or for specific values. For example, sometimes it might make > < sense to use more sophisticated weighting that depends on the values > < of the corresponding elements. Thus, depending on the domain, an > < implementation might assign a smaller distance to the difference > < between closely related subtags (or treat certain values as equal). > < Some examples of closely related subtags might be: > --- > > Where a language priority list follows the syntax of the "Accept- > > Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and > > [RFC3282], language ranges without a Q value are given values equal > > to the value of the previous language range in the list (processing > > from first to last). If the first language range has no Q value, it > > is given a value of 1.0. Language ranges with Q values of zero are > > removed. For example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes > > "fr;q=1.0,en;q=0.5,de;q=0.5,it;q=0.5". The distance values given > > above are then divided by the Q values. For example, if that > > language tag "fr-FR" has a distance of 384 from a language range with > > a Q value of 0.8, then the resulting distance is 480 (384 div 0.8). > > > > Implementations or protocols MAY use different weighting systems than > > the ones described above, as long as the weightings and weighting > > mechanisms are clearly specified. Thus, for example, an > > implementation or protocol could give all language tags with missing > > Q values a value of 1.0, or give the distance value 1000 to a > > language mismatch. They MAY also use more sophisticated weights that > > depend on the values of the corresponding elements. For example, an > > implementation might give a small distance to the difference closely > > related subtags. Some examples of closely related subtags might be: > 727,732c750,771 > < Another way an implementation could address extended language ranges > < would be to map them to basic language ranges: if the first subtag is > < a "*" then the entire range is treated as "*" (which matches the > < default content), otherwise the wildcard subtag is removed. For > < example, if the language range were "en-*-US", then the range would > < be mapped to "en-US". > --- > > Implementations MAY also map extended language ranges to basic > > language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range > > is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each > > wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were > > "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US". > > > > Where a language priority list contains Q values as in the syntax of > > the "Accept-Language" header defined in [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) > > and [RFC3282], language tags without a Q value are given values equal > > to the value of the previous language tag (processing from first to > > last). If the first language tag has no Q value, it is given a value > > of 1.0. Then language tags with zero Q values are removed. For > > example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=1.0, en;q=0.5, > > de;q=0.5, it;q=0.5". The language priority list is then sorted from > > highest priority to lowest, whereby any two language tags with the > > same Q values are remain in the same order as in the original > > language priority list. This list is then traversed as described > > above in doing lookup. > > > > Implementations or protocols MAY use different lookup mechanisms > > systems than the ones described above, as long as those mechanisms > > are clearly specified. > 747,750c786,789 > < Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semanti c > < meaning of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is > < usually compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag > < being matched, using basic string processing. > --- > > Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning > > of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually > > compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being > > matched, using basic string processing. > 770c809 > < ranges), these subtags normally do not interefer with filtering > --- > > ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering > 1059c1098,1099 > < Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, and many, many others. > --- > > Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many, > > many others. > 1073c1113 > < Quest Software > --- > > Yahoo! Inc > 1075c1115 > < Email: addison dot phillips at quest dot com > --- > > Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com > 1079c1119 > < IBM > --- > > Google > 1081c1121 > < Email: mark dot davis at ibm dot com > --- > > Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 21:19:13 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6evJ-0005zo-8i; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:19:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F68zk-0001Dg-Kp for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:13:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA00214 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay03.pair.com ([209.68.5.17]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F69Bl-0005qz-AT for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:26:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 46382 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2006 16:13:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 6 Feb 2006 16:13:23 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.23.194.196 Message-ID: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:12:13 -0800 From: Mark Davis User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-action@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:19:11 -0500 Cc: ltru@ietf.org, Addison Phillips Subject: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no longer valid. Please change the email address listed for me in draft-ietf-ltru-registry to: mark.davis@macchiato.com Thanks, Mark Davis _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Feb 07 23:30:18 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6gyA-0007QK-4E; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:30:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6gy7-0007NL-Op for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:30:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11478; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:28:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6hAd-0002D6-Fk; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:43:12 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn-c183.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.169.183]) by mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k184TjN3023428; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:29:45 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=zN6I4zHM7tghs1zGLdoUZiA5uuL7fF58j84p5GuA9YgxXv/RZRAqyV2zJjnfEMO5 From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Mark Davis'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:31:31 -0800 Message-ID: <000b01c62c68$899f7eb0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Thread-Index: AcYsVnzYy0SLX4MkSHCeivvpVZt7DwAEeCqQ X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ltru@ietf.org, 'Addison Phillips' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I'll put it on our very short AUTH48 list (three items: the zh-Hant typo = and our two email addresses). Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Mark Davis > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 8:12 AM > To: ietf-action@ietf.org > Cc: ltru@ietf.org; Addison Phillips > Subject: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author >=20 > I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no longer valid. > Please change the email address listed for me in > draft-ietf-ltru-registry to: >=20 > mark.davis@macchiato.com >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Mark Davis >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 04:46:43 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6luM-0000kt-Ay; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:46:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6luG-0000hb-Qx; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:46:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA04599; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 04:44:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6m6i-00054A-PM; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:59:29 -0500 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k189jvd02923; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:45:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 2a80_b45f39d4_9887_11da_985c_0014221f2a2d; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:45:57 +0900 Received: from EBOSHIIWA.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k189is7f017795; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 18:45:19 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060208131055.06c64170@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:12:21 +0900 To: "Addison Phillips" , "'Addison Phillips'" , From: Martin Duerst Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 In-Reply-To: <001701c62c2e$df6713b0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> References: <000901c62c2c$5586d240$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> <001701c62c2e$df6713b0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hello Addison, Because your email went out Tuesday, and the deadline was Monday, I assume that this latest correction doesn't make it into the repository. Once we know what's in the repository, can you please change your web-published copy to reflect that? Regards, Martin. At 06:38 06/02/08, Addison Phillips wrote: >... and it helps if I attach the *right one*. > >Addison > >Addison Phillips >Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > >Internationalization is an architecture. >It is not a feature. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Addison Phillips >> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:21 PM >> To: internet-drafts@ietf.org >> Cc: ltru@ietf.org >> Subject: [Ltru] RE: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 >> >> Dear Editor, >> >> Please find attached the corrected draft #9 (I previously forgot to change >> the year to 2006 from 2005) of draft-ietf-ltru-matching. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Addison (for the editors) >> >> Addison Phillips >> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. >> >> Internationalization is an architecture. >> It is not a feature. >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:10 PM >> > To: Addison Phillips >> > Subject: Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 >> > >> > The Secretariat CANNOT process your Internet-Draft submission due to >> > following reason(s): >> > >> > * All Internet-Drafts must include the following statement: >> > >> > Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). >> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Editor, >> > > >> > > Please find attached draft #9 of draft-ietf-ltru-matching in text >> format. >> > > Fenner's ABNF validator and idnits both ran clean against it. >> > > >> > > Addison (for the editors) >> > > >> > > Addison Phillips >> > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. >> > > >> > > Internationalization is an architecture. >> > > It is not a feature. >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 05:44:03 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6mnr-0002Q0-3X; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6mno-0002NK-IS for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:44:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09169 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 05:42:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from anubis.medic.chalmers.se ([129.16.30.218]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6n0N-00079O-FT for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:57:00 -0500 X-Medic-Info: 264.43e9cb6a.0 kbClqHhqOMDgrnj5 Received: from webmail.chalmers.se (elbe1.ita.chalmers.se [129.16.222.100]) by mail.chalmers.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A608B16 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:43:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from 83.248.24.153 (SquirrelMail authenticated user kent); by webmail.chalmers.se with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:43:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:43:54 +0100 (CET) From: "Kent Karlsson" To: ltru@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7.EL3 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7.EL3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Ltru] non-terminal names X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I still do not like that two *closely related* (draft) RFCs use the *same* names for non-terminals that have *different* productions (or more precisely: produce different formal languages). Thus I would still like to see that some non-terminals in section 2 got their names changed. I'm not very keen on the exact names or name differences, as long as the names are sufficiently mnemonic. It still would be nice if the names for related productions had a systematic difference. E.g. "langtag" in -registry and "langtagpat" in -matching, "extlang" in -registry and "extlangpat" in -matching. Non-terminals that produce the same formal language should of course not have their names changed (e.g. "alphanum" and "privateuse"). A further elaboration would be to keep the productions from -registry, and just add some productions, e.g. regionpat =3D region / "*" ; or wildcard /kent k _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 07:32:26 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6oUj-0004hx-UQ; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:32:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6oUf-0004fp-JE for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:32:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17429 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:30:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeke.toscano.org ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6ohF-0002MN-LH for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:45:22 -0500 Received: from dul1shollenbl1 ([::ffff:216.168.239.87]) (AUTH: LOGIN sah, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:31:19 -0500 id 01588017.43E9E498.00007F85 From: "Scott Hollenbeck" To: "'Mark Davis'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:32:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> Thread-Index: AcYsVkyQj9P2l11jTACVO/AurwgyRQAVKm5g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ltru@ietf.org, 'Addison Phillips' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Davis [mailto:markdavis@google.com] > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:12 AM > To: ietf-action@ietf.org > Cc: ltru@ietf.org; Addison Phillips > Subject: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author > > I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no > longer valid. > Please change the email address listed for me in > draft-ietf-ltru-registry to: > > mark.davis@macchiato.com You can make this change when the document enters the auth48 state. The Secretariat (the entity behind the ietf-action email address) generally can't edit documents once they've been passed to the RFC Editor. Of course, the problem here is that the RFC Editor uses the email addresses listed in the document to let you know when the auth48 state is entered. Catch-22. I've bcc'd the RFC Editor; maybe they can update their working copy. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 09:37:12 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6qRT-0007Qa-V4; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:37:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6qRS-0007Oc-FR for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:37:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA27379; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F6qe3-0006xY-64; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:50:12 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F6qRP-0002UY-3V; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:37:07 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060208110002.04bc94f0@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 12:17:00 +0100 To: Mark Davis , ietf-action@ietf.org From: r&d afrac Subject: Re: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author In-Reply-To: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> References: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2C25299A X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb Cc: ltru@ietf.org, Addison Phillips X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 17:12 06/02/2006, Mark Davis wrote: >I have changed companies, and my IBM email address is no longer >valid. Please change the email address listed for me in >draft-ietf-ltru-registry to: >mark.davis@macchiato.com Congrats too! Thanks to you and Addison I won a bottle of Champaign. My bet that authors would join Google and Yahoo! before the RFC was published. (I have another one that Services providers would significantly enter the Unicode list of Directors and Officers, replacing some Solutions proiders - however what is Google now?). The IAB response gives me the "no red" light for the ethic/users inputs TF I proposed. I engaged already the project, but it will take time to present and discuss a Draft Charter, see how it correctly intefaces the Internet standard process, gather competences, develop the associated tools. I doubt this project can be of any help for the RFC 3066 Bis final review. May be that now Addison and you are in a Service company directly interested by the legal aspects - like those I rose in my IESG appeal - could you dialog with your legal deparments over these issues and make the WG-LTRU benefit from their inputs? International lawyers having expertise in that area are only a few and they cost a lot, so we can only call on colleagues and Members. Would the IESG not ask the WG-LTRU to correct the RFC 3066 bis as I suggest it, I will appeal the IAB. This should give you time enough to come-up with a solution to protect search engines from being legally blocked, at least in EU - may be the reason why some do not think necessary to have "EU" in the language tags registry? I am overloaded right now, so I am afraid I cannot look into the current draft before the LC as I wished. My advise is to really make it read - in the RFC 3066 Bis context - by European, Israeli, Argentinian lawyers, asking about the privacy and anti-racism laws and explaining them what is the RMS (retro-meta-spam). Cheers. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 10:29:19 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6rFv-0007lX-4H; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:29:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F6rFt-0007k2-OV for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:29:18 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01305 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:27:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F6rDh-00050f-IO for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:27:01 +0100 Received: from 1cust123.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.16.123]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:27:01 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust123.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:27:01 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:23:51 +0100 Organization: Lines: 80 Message-ID: <43EA0D07.D2C@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <43E91DB3.3895@xyzzy.claranet.de> <003201c62c37$0f0e0bc0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust123.tnt5.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: submission: draft-ietf-ltru-matching #09 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips wrote: > I hadn't updated inter-locale.com yet. No problem, I was more interested in the improved ABNF than in the year... ;-) Martin mumbled something about a deadline, are we already beyond the -0x (for x > 0) deadline ? Checking... ...no, March 06. Maybe Martin meant the daily deadline. http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/rfc/hist.cgi?draft=draft-ietf-ltru-registry reports that the registry draft is in states REF-EXT and MISSREF*R. MISSREF*R: | Processing delayed pending receipt of a normative reference. REF draft-ietf-ltru-matching NOT-RECEIVED | Holding for normative reference (followed by ID string of | referenced document) That's strange, there's no reference to the matching draft in the registry draft, let alone any normative reference. Was that added in an IESG note ? Checking... https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi?command=id_detail&id=13008 ...the tracker already knows Mark's new address. Following the links via... https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13008&rfc_flag=0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1811&filename=draft-ietf-ltru-registry | Note to the RFC Editor: | draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14 in combination with draft-ietf-ltru-matching | (not yet approved by the IESG) are intended to obsolete RFC 3066 | and BCP 47. These two documents should thus be published at the same | time as draft-ietf-ltru-matching once draft-ietf-ltru-matching has been | approved by the IESG. | Please add text to the Abstract and Introduction of | draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14 to make this clear. "TBD" refers to the | RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-ltru-matching. | To be added to the end of the Abstract: | This document, in combination with RFC TBD, replaces RFC 3066, | which replaced RFC 1766. | Introduction, second to last paragraph: | OLD: | This document replaces [RFC3066], which replaced [RFC1766]. | NEW: | This document, in combination with [RFCTBD], replaces [RFC3066], | which replaced [RFC1766]. | Please add an Informative reference in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14 | to the RFC that draft-ietf-ltru-matching becomes. Somehow I missed when the WG and/or the authors accepted this part, but it's clearly in in the published approval: Still only "informative", but with [RFCTBD] in the intro it's as near to "normative" as it can get. Ugly, not what I wanted (maybe Bruce and John wanted this, and apparently Scott adopted this position). If the [RFCTBD] ends up as a second RfC forming BCP 47 it's messy, IIRC we wanted the registry to be independent of the matching PS. Especially we wanted matching as PS and not as part of BCP 47. What went wrong except from the obvious problem that I did not check all details in the approval message ? Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 08 22:13:38 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F72FV-0005VZ-8L; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:13:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F72FH-0005Mz-32 for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:13:23 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07423 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F72F1-0003va-Gg for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:13:07 +0100 Received: from pd9fbad06.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.173.6]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:13:07 +0100 Received: from nobody by pd9fbad06.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:13:07 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:12:11 +0100 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <43EAB30B.4231@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fbad06.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: non-terminal names X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Kent Karlsson wrote: > A further elaboration would be to keep the productions from > -registry, and just add some productions Please propose the complete ABNF, ready to be mixed with the registry ABNF, and passing Bill's validator: USEFOR consumed all my energy to tweak ABNF. With a proposal where the last issue are nice names for the productions it should be possible to come to a decision. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 00:59:12 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F74pj-00021K-8D; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:59:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F74p4-0001Qe-51 for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:58:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18254 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F751j-0000LG-Et for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:11:37 -0500 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k195w4d07433; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:58:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 3f5a_08fe6420_9931_11da_96b0_0014221f2a2d; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:58:03 +0900 Received: from EBOSHIIWA.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k195ts2J030466; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:57:28 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060209135358.06609b10@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:54:41 +0900 To: "Kent Karlsson" , ltru@ietf.org From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] non-terminal names In-Reply-To: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.s e> References: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This in principle looks like a very good idea. Regards, Martin. At 19:43 06/02/08, Kent Karlsson wrote: > >I still do not like that two *closely related* (draft) RFCs use the >*same* names for non-terminals that have *different* productions >(or more precisely: produce different formal languages). Thus I >would still like to see that some non-terminals in section 2 got >their names changed. > >I'm not very keen on the exact names or name differences, as long >as the names are sufficiently mnemonic. It still would be nice if >the names for related productions had a systematic difference. >E.g. "langtag" in -registry and "langtagpat" in -matching, "extlang" >in -registry and "extlangpat" in -matching. Non-terminals that >produce the same formal language should of course not have >their names changed (e.g. "alphanum" and "privateuse"). > >A further elaboration would be to keep the productions from >-registry, and just add some productions, e.g. > >regionpat = region > / "*" ; or wildcard > > /kent k > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 00:59:25 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F74px-00022a-56; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:59:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F74pl-00020r-2I for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:59:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18301; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F752L-0000NI-RM; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:12:15 -0500 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k195wfu15725; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:58:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 4007_1ef9841c_9931_11da_80dd_0014221f2a2d; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:58:40 +0900 Received: from EBOSHIIWA.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k195ts2L030466; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:57:49 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060209140530.06608800@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:08:14 +0900 To: r&d afrac , Mark Davis , ietf-action@ietf.org From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20060208110002.04bc94f0@mail.afrac.org> References: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20060208110002.04bc94f0@mail.afrac.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ltru@ietf.org, Addison Phillips X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [both as a chair and as an individual] At 20:17 06/02/08, r&d afrac wrote: > RMS (retro-meta-spam). Not sure whether this is related to our work or not, but could you please explain this acronym/term here? If applicable, please mark your mail as off-topic. If there is a good explanation already somewhere, a pointer may be good enough. Regards, Martin. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 06:01:46 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F79YY-00070f-Fy; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:01:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F79YX-00070H-Ru for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:01:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09497 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 05:59:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from anubis.medic.chalmers.se ([129.16.30.218]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F79l9-0002UI-Db for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:14:48 -0500 X-Medic-Info: 14ec.43eb210c.0 Ix494omztMcvnOJ4 Received: from webmail.chalmers.se (elbe1.ita.chalmers.se [129.16.222.100]) by mail.chalmers.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3753BE379 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:01:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from 83.248.24.153 (SquirrelMail authenticated user kent); by webmail.chalmers.se with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:01:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <61852.83.248.24.153.1139482892.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> In-Reply-To: <43EAB30B.4231@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> <43EAB30B.4231@xyzzy.claranet.de> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:01:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Ltru] Re: non-terminal names From: "Kent Karlsson" To: ltru@ietf.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7.EL3 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7.EL3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Frank Ellermann wrote: > Please propose the complete ABNF, ready to be mixed with the > registry ABNF, and passing Bill's validator Ok. For brevity I will not quote the registry ABNF here, but there is no change for it at all (maybe not ideal, but it cannot be changed at this stage). (You did write "mixed with"!) The two together passes Bill's validator. I think that the current (v. -09) -matching production extension =3D singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ] is wrong. It allows a singleton *alone* (no dash and second component at all), which I don't think was intended. See the last productions below for a correction. Here are the *additional* productions for (extended) language tag patterns/ranges (to be mixed with the -registry ABNF): ------------------------------------------------ Language-Tag-pat =3D langtag-pat / privateuse ; private-use tag / grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations langtag-pat =3D (language-pat ["-" script-pat] ["-" region-pat] *("-" variant-pat) *("-" extension-pat) ["-" privateuse]) language-pat =3D language / (2*3ALPHA extlang-pat) / "*" ; or wildcard extlang-pat =3D *2("-" 3ALPHA) "-*" ; reserved for future use ; wildcard can only appear ; at the end script-pat =3D script / "*" ; or wildcard region-pat =3D region / "*" ; or wildcard variant-pat =3D variant / "*" ; or wildcard extension-pat =3D singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum)) / singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) "-*" ; extension subtags ; wildcard can only appear ; at the end ----------------------------------------- /kent k _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 09:28:14 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7CmM-0005vB-0c; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:28:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7CmK-0005uO-Fq for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:28:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA25870; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 09:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7Cyb-0001TI-4z; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:40:54 -0500 Received: from ver78-2-82-241-91-24.fbx.proxad.net ([82.241.91.24] helo=JFCM.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1F7Cla-0005ja-R6; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:27:27 -0800 Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20060209111816.06bb1560@mail.afrac.org> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:41:05 +0100 To: Martin Duerst , Mark Davis , ietf-action@ietf.org From: r&d afrac Subject: Re: [Ltru] Email address for draft-ietf-ltru-registry author In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060209140530.06608800@localhost> References: <43E7755D.2070607@google.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20060208110002.04bc94f0@mail.afrac.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20060209140530.06608800@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-33C45400 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - afrac.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: ltru@ietf.org, Addison Phillips X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 06:08 09/02/2006, Martin Duerst wrote: >[both as a chair and as an individual] > >At 20:17 06/02/08, r&d afrac wrote: > > > RMS (retro-meta-spam). > >Not sure whether this is related to our work or not, but could >you please explain this acronym/term here? If applicable, please >mark your mail as off-topic. If there is a good explanation already >somewhere, a pointer may be good enough. I am obviously surprised by this question from WG-ltru co-Chair: http://ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-morfin-appeal.txt jfc PS. I indicated a few months ago on the IETF list that I started working on the issue. A few people were interested to share. However due to a competition's DoS against me, you may have heard of, I had to set priorities. We carried the analysis in French more serenely, to the benefit of those who can actually protect the users and make it illegal in France and in Europe. The intent is to bring the issue at the IGF: we will be able to work in French too and to get it then translated for regional use. I hope that this mass profiling tool will be outlawed some day. This obviousy affects the economy of the currently discussed filtering Draft by Google and Yahoo! experts. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 13:33:13 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7GbR-0006ax-Nj; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:33:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7GbO-0006P0-Sa for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:33:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18796 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:30:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7Gnj-0002PW-B5 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:45:58 -0500 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/y.out) with ESMTP id k19IWIhC060416; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:32:18 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:thread-index:x-mimeole; b=ThBDgXOdF33asBVoVCtpIl9qs6aBxQcDxy3qsthAWr+9vD2w8fY1AYD5zZGLpxpp From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Kent Karlsson'" , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: non-terminal names Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:34:04 -0800 Message-ID: <000301c62da7$68566a80$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <61852.83.248.24.153.1139482892.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> Thread-Index: AcYtaID0CwoeoRjoSkWvURBbIag8ggAOucmw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I dislike the basic assertion that we should use different non-terminals. I think it is *more* confusing to have a production for a tag and then, when choosing my range to select that tag, a differently named sub-entity. Adding "-pat" doesn't add anything in my opinion. When selecting an extended language range to do some matching operation, I think it is useful to know that the "language" production selects the "language" part of a language tag and the "script" production select the script part (und so weite). Admittedly, this is a preferential thing, and it seems I'm in the minority on this. > I think that the current (v. -09) -matching production > > extension = singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ] > > is wrong. It allows a singleton *alone* (no dash and second > component at all), which I don't think was intended. See the > last productions below for a correction. You have a good point. More later. > extlang-pat = *2("-" 3ALPHA) "-*" ; reserved for future use > ; wildcard can only appear > ; at the end Nope. This production would require a trailing -* and disallows the (remotely possible) 3-subtag extlang sequence. The current (more correct IMO) production is: extlang = *2("-" 3ALPHA) ("-" ( 3ALPHA / "*")) ; reserved for future use ; wildcard can only appear ; at the end As noted in previous threads, there is a bit of subtlety (which may be lost on readers) here. If you choose to include an extlang sequence at all, it will contain at least one subtag (... or you will have omitted the extlang sequence). The back half of the production covers this. The front half of the production (*2 etc.) covers any additional subtags as needed. > extension-pat = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum)) > / singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) "-*" You're correct about the meaning of the current ABNF, but I think we need to be quite as redundant. I would suggest: extension = singleton *("-" ext-subtag) ("-" (ext-subtag / "*")) ext-subtag = 2*8alphanum This uses the same subtlety as the extlang, allowing us to explain it in the text only once and keeping the number of different issues to a minimum. In particular, I would suggest adding this text immediately following the ABNF: --- Some subtag types, such as extlang, variant, privateuse, and extension, allow more than one subtag when forming a language tag. Extended language ranges permit the wildcard subtag "-*" only at the end of such a sequence in order to simplify matching implementations. Thus, if "EXA" and "EXB" were extended language subtags, the range "qx-EXA-EXB-*" would be legal, while the range "qx-EXA-*-EXB" would not be. This is a subtlety in the ABNF which might not be immediately obvious. --- Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 14:15:26 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7HGH-0004xv-VP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:15:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7HGE-0004ts-8r for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:15:22 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21949 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F7HFw-0002HS-Qk for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:15:04 +0100 Received: from 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.10.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:15:04 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:15:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:09:58 +0100 Organization: Lines: 140 Message-ID: <43EB9386.64E3@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <64042.83.248.24.153.1139395434.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> <43EAB30B.4231@xyzzy.claranet.de> <61852.83.248.24.153.1139482892.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: non-terminal names X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Kent Karlsson wrote: > For brevity I will not quote the registry ABNF here Okay, I have that, added your productions, and it's valid. Now we have to rename various terms in the matching draft: 2.1 has its own idea of , but that won't fly with your concept, a is already defined in 3066bis. We could just s/language/basic/ in 2.1: basic-range = basic-tag / "*" basic-tag = 1*8[alphanum] *["-" 1*8alphanum] That's for basic 3066-compatible stuff, almost the same as in 2616. They had no DIGIT in 2616, but DIGIT is listed in the 2616-errata at least for : Maybe we could just say "updates 2616" and be done with it ? Do we really want to mess with the 2616 and 3066 concept of a ? IMHO we can keep it as it always was: basic-range = basic-tag / "*" basic-tag = 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8alphanum ) Besides the old 2.1 ABNF in the matching draft -09 is wrong: v v language-tag = 1*8[alphanum] *["-" 1*8alphanum] The isn't optional... ;-) Now the fun stuff, in chapter 2.2. Apparently we could get away with adding "-range" everywhere, I'd like that better than your "-pat" everywhere. Something's odd in the -09 ABNF and in your derived ABNF: Do we want "zero or more" s ? What's the idea of more than one wildcard variant like say de-CH-*-*-x-oops ? No problem with de-CH-1996-*-x-okay, but de-CH-*-1996-x-weird is weird, or isn't it ? > I think that the current (v. -09) -matching production > extension = singleton *("-" (2*8alphanum)) [ "-*" ] > is wrong. It allows a singleton *alone* (no dash and second > component at all), which I don't think was intended. Yes, your version is better. Adding the 4234-recommended "grouping" for alternatives after s/pat/range/ I get: extension-range = extension / ( singleton *( "-" 2*8alphanum ) "-*" ) It's not completely obvious to find the in your ABNF, therefore I propose to integrate your into the or resp.: language-range = language / "*" / (2*3ALPHA *2("-" 3ALPHA) "-*") Putting it all together I get what you see below, ignoring the question of "two or more wildcard variants" for the moment. Bye, Frank basic-range = basic-tag / "*" basic-tag = 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8alphanum ) extended-language-range = langtag-range / privateuse ; private-use tag / grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations langtag-range = (language-range ["-" script-range] ["-" region-range] *("-" variant-range) *("-" extension-range) ["-" privateuse]) language-range = language / "*" / (2*3ALPHA *2("-" 3ALPHA) "-*") script-range = script / "*" region-range = region / "*" variant-range = variant / "*" extension-range = extension / ( singleton *( "-" 2*8alphanum ) "-*" ) ; --- copied from 3066bis as is --- Language-Tag = langtag / privateuse ; private use tag / grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations langtag = (language ["-" script] ["-" region] *("-" variant) *("-" extension) ["-" privateuse]) language = (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use / 5*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag extlang = *3("-" 3ALPHA) ; reserved for future use script = 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code region = 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code / 3DIGIT ; UN M.49 code variant = 5*8alphanum ; registered variants / (DIGIT 3alphanum) extension = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum)) singleton = %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT ; "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9" ; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use privateuse = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum)) grandfathered = 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum)) ; grandfathered registration ; Note: i is the only singleton ; that starts a grandfathered tag alphanum = (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Feb 09 15:03:17 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7I0b-00012f-E6; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:03:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F7I0V-00010h-H1 for ltru@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:03:14 -0500 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA25403 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F7Hzv-00064h-Jv for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:02:35 +0100 Received: from 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net ([149.225.10.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:02:35 +0100 Received: from nobody by 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:02:35 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:55:23 +0100 Organization: Lines: 77 Message-ID: <43EB9E2B.3E90@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <61852.83.248.24.153.1139482892.squirrel@webmail.chalmers.se> <000301c62da7$68566a80$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust118.tnt1.hbg2.deu.da.uu.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ltru] Re: non-terminal names X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips wrote: > I think it is *more* confusing to have a production for a > tag and then, when choosing my range to select that tag, a > differently named sub-entity. The idea to recycle what we have in 3066bis is IMO attractive. Even if we don't do it the attempt helped to find two bugs ;-) > it seems I'm in the minority on this. I'm still rather neutral about it, "import 3066bis ABNF as is" is nice, but "offer the complete ABNF in RFCTBD" is also fine. >> extlang-pat = *2("-" 3ALPHA) "-*" ; reserved for future [...] > Nope. This production would require a trailing -* and > disallows the (remotely possible) 3-subtag extlang sequence. Yes, I also got it wrong at the first glance. But he has the " without wildcard" hidden in the 3066 . Therefore all he needed was " with wildcard" as shown. I proposed to get rid of the separate production, and to integrate the wildcard case directly into . > there is a bit of subtlety (which may be lost on readers) > here. If you choose to include an extlang sequence at all, > it will contain at least one subtag (... or you will have > omitted the extlang sequence). Sounds like a good idea, but I don't see it in your syntax, you have extlang = *2("-" 3ALPHA) ("-" ( 3ALPHA / "*")) That can degenerate into "-*", and then it's not more clear what this "-*" is, , , etc. The "-*" is only unambiguous if you have an explicit