Date: 2005-08-25 20:55
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
On 00:40 26/08/2005, David Hopwood said:
This objection seems to be correct: URI tags include characters not
allowed by RFC 3066.
Then? The purpose of this work is to address the limitations of RFC
3066. URI tags did not exist when RFC 3066 was written.
RFC 1738 certainly existed, not only at the time of RFC 3066, but its
predecessor RFC 1766 as well.
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). 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. 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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf