Subject: [Ltru] Support of JAVA

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:35:17 +0200

I am not a Java developper. I am told there are equivalent problems in Java 
to support RFC 3066 and to include the script, Java not permitting the use 
of "-" and "_" in the initial part of the tag? If I am correct the proposed 
format does not consider/coordinate with Java's needs. This would be a lack 
of extensibility of the format?
Thank you for the comments.
jfc 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:48:01 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

> of extensibility of the format?

I think this is not a concern for us. If Java has some API that passes
RFC 3066 language tags and it can't handle - "in the initial part of the
tag" then it's already not conforming to RFC 3066. If it has some API
that passes a locale ID and their locale IDs can't handle = or _ "in the
initial part of the tag", then that's not an RFC 3066 application that
we need to worry about.

The ISO 639 JAC has received requests for alpha-2 IDs from people
working on Unix/Linux localization projects saying that they were told
they needed an alpha-2 ID for their language because it couldn't handle
alpha-3 IDs. That is not the JAC's problem, and we will not throw away
the criteria for additions to ISO 639-1 just to make things easier for
some software projects (and turn the limited alpha-2 codespace into a
first-come-first-served land-grab). 

In just the same way, I think this Java issue is just that: an issue for
Java to deal with, not us.

I seem to recall that at some point JFC was saying that an Internet
specification for language tags should not be driven by the needs of
XML. If so (my memory may be failing me), then I'm surprised, then, that
he's bringing up this issue.

Peter Constable

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:43:31 +0200

On 16:48 22/04/2005, Peter Constable said:
>I think this is not a concern for us.

Dear Peter,
this WG results from the lack of consensus during two Last Calls. The main 
objection during that Last Call is the refusal of the authors to consider 
that the Internet may include other needs than the XML, HTML and CLDR need.

1. The HTML needs have not been discussed. I do know any problem but I am 
not an HTML expert.
2. The CLDR needs have never been discussed, in spite of my questions.
3. The XML needs have been fully described as resulting from a lack of 
foreseeing (exansibility) and propositions have been made.

This does not addresses the other needs which up to now have been denied 
(DNS, LDAP, ONES, CRC, etc.)

>Java to deal with, not us.

Who is "us"? Your "us" is obviously the same as mine. Mine is, scalably, 
every Internet user, every internet protocol, every internet application. 
XML, HTML, CLDR are just some of these applications as are Java, LDAP, C, 
DNS, ONES, CRC, .NET, etc.

>specification for language tags should not be driven by the needs of XML. 
>If so (my memory may be failing me), then I'm surprised, then, that he's 
>bringing up this issue.

I am glad you eventually heard me, even if you did not understand. IANA 
languages tags cannot ne driven by the needs of XML, nor Java, nor CLDR, 
nor DNS, etc. they must all be consistent with the Internet architecture, 
to be cross consistent.

jfc