At 16:42 28/08/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Date: 2005-08-25 20:55
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
> please document how do you do, while respecting the hybrid format of
> the proposed ABNF where information is not indentified by fixed
> position, but also relative position and size, with "-" as sole
> separator. And they want to keep labels between "-" 8 characters
> long. Tell me how you support IDNs.
>
> Let suppose that I have "lang-tags.org:" as a scheme.
> or "xn--abcdef.com:". Tell me how you support them
It's unclear what you're trying to get at here. A URI scheme is a
protocol element (an "assigned number") registered by IANA, not a
piece of text (see RFCs 1958 and 2277).
A proposition I received from the WG-ltru was to slice URI tags into
8 aphanum labels, etc. Among many problems URI tags accept domain
names, mail names and IP addresses as registered identifiers. The
main problem with the ABNF is therefore the use of "-" as a separator
since "-" is a legitimate character in domain name. The support of
IRI tags is impossible.
Our work is on CRC (common reference centers). offering such
references. URI tags are the correct solution (with some restrictions
we will probably document once the RFC is published)
As such, it has no need of
an indication of language, for it has no language; it is a language-
independent protocol element. Confusing protocol element issues with
language will only muddy the water; try to stay focused on real
problems.
For that matter, DNS labels are public names (i.e. protocol elements,
again see RFC 1958 (sect. 4.3, noting that "text" there has a different
meaning than in RFC 2277)) and as such there should not have been any
reason to overload the semantics and baggage of internationalized
text (in the RFC 2277 sense). Now, having made the decision to
nevertheless do so, you might well point out that per RFC 2277, there
ought to be a means of indicating language in IDNs. However, that is
primarily an issue with the IDN specification(s), not with the document
under discussion (except to the extent that the document under
discussion extends the likely length of tags in a way that is likely to
conflict with the DNS label length and domain name length limits, *if*
there were in fact provision in IDN for the use of language tags.
Fully correct. The response is with the approved pending URI Tags RFC.
IRT IDN, as a "multilingualiser" I disapprove IDNA. But whatever the
final solution the MLDN charsets may use a langtag like solution.
Hence the interest. Another interest is that currently the IANA uses
RFC 3066 language tags to identify the IDN tables. What is IMHO an error.
You
might also point out that as IDNs use utf-8 exclusively as a charset, and
as script is easily inferred from the Unicode code points corresponding
to utf-8, that the length-increasing provision for conflating script with
language would be unnecessary and redundant *if* IDNs had provision for
language tags. But IDNs have no such provision at this time.
Correct. The MLDN problem is IMHO a different issue. However I say:
1. a langtag may be associated to a locale (this is in the WG-ltru
Charter [Unicode CLDR project and our own ISO 11179 related solution])
2. we think there should be DNS locale for some important sites and services
3. DNS locale could also be the proper place to distribute MLDN
virtual zones charsets (several concepts to discuss, specify and deploy).
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf