Subject: RE: draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:34:47 -0800

Hi Doug,

At 8:20 AM -0700 2/23/13, Doug Ewell wrote:

You might want to reference BCP 47
instead of RFC 5646, but this is up to you.

When I reference RFC 5646, the actual reference includes it as
both RFC and BCP.

I would actually suggest leaving off the
reference to the Registry and just say the tag must conform to 5646
(or BCP 47). That will imply the use of the Registry.

How about: "The 'humintlang' attribute value MUST be a
language tag per RFC 5646"?

From: Randall Gellens

Sent: 2/23/2013 1:18

To: Doug Ewell; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

Cc: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01

Hi Doug,

Thanks very much.  So, if I
understand, your suggestions would be:

(1) Change the text for the possible new
'humintlang' attribute from:

The
"humintlang" attribute value must be a single RFC 3066

[RFC3066] language tag in US-ASCII
[RFC3066].  It is not dependent

on the charset attribute.

To:

The "humintlang" attribute
value must be a single RFC 5646

[RFC5646] language tag from the IANA
registry [IANA-lang-

tags].  It is not dependent on the
charset attribute.

(2) Add RFC 5646 to the Normative
References

Since the IANA registry referenced now
was actually created by RFC 5646 not RFC 3066, this is both better
technically (for the reasons you mention) and more
correct.

Let me know if I've understood, and if
so, I may be able to get an update in before the cut-off.

At 9:09 AM -0700 2/22/13, Doug Ewell
wrote:

Draft-gellens-negotiating-human-language-01, "Negotiating
Human Language Using SDP", says this about the source of values
for the SDP 'lang' attribute: > The "lang" attribute
value must be a single [RFC3066] language tag > in US-ASCII
[RFC3066]. Although this wording is quoted from RFC 4566, the
subsequent section proposing a new 'humintlang' attribute uses the
same wording. Any new format or protocol that employs language tags
should apply BCP 47 (RFC 5646), not RFC 3066, which was obsoleted in
2006. BCP 47 allows the use of more than 7300 additional language
subtags derived from ISO 639-3, as well as script subtags based on ISO
15924 and variant subtags, none of which are permitted in a generative
manner by RFC 3066. The draft says, "The attribute value should
be a language tag from the IANA registry [IANA-lang-tags]",
referencing www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, but RFC
3066 does not use this registry; it references the core ISO standards
directly, which reduces stability, and it uses its own IANA registry
(also obsolete) only for a few dozen predefined variant tags, many of
which are deprecated in BCP 47. RFC 4647, also part of BCP 47,
provides guidelines for matching language tags, and may benefit the
SDP negotiation process described in the draft. -- Doug Ewell |
Thornton, CO, USA http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell °©

--

Randall Gellens

Opinions are personal;    facts are
suspect;    I speak for myself only

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;

and I'm not even sure about the universe.

--Albert
Einstein

--

Randall Gellens

Opinions are personal;    facts are
suspect;    I speak for myself only

-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------

Things are more like they used to be than they are new.