To: erik(_at_)poel(_dot_)juice(_dot_)or(_dot_)jp
Subject: Re: 10646, and all that
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1993 19:23:45 -0500 (EST)
Anyone for Content-Language: ? Would that, with the "not required,
but encouraged when it is important" solve enough of this problem
that we can get on with our lives?
Instead, how about a language= parameter to the Content-type header
for text/*? I prefer a parameter because metamail-like systems will
pass such parameters to programs that interpret contents. Also,
language= is really only applicable to text, and I would like to get
by with as few Content- headers as possible. Finally, I'll point out
that a language= header inside something like a multipart/alternative
construct could be used to give the reader a choice between several
different translations of a text.
p.s. If we decide to pursue this (or, for that matter, something of
the 10646-lang1-and-lang2 flavor), please note that there is an ISO
standard, IS 639, which specifies codes for all (or most) of the
world's languages. It could permit a certain amount of
definition-by-reference, rather than having to invent our own rules.
And, unlike the character set standards and even IS 3166 (the
country name codes), IS 639 is old, settled, and very stable.
Hmmm... I might prefer the UDC numeric language codes, which IS 639
incorporates by reference. Ideally, we should have only one spelling
of a language, so mail readers don't have to recognize "English" and
"En" and "E" and "=20". (We could always insist on the two-letter IS
639 codes, but even then there are both "Sp" and "Es" for Espanol.)
I also gather that the UCS system is more comprehensive.
And yes, this does appear to be a way to profile use of 10646.
Keith