Subject: [Sip] Re: [Sipping] I-D ACTION:draft-fujimoto-sipping-header-lang-00.tx t

From: Shingo Fujimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:37:49 +0900

Thank you for your comments.

My comments are inline.

Adam Roach wrote:
> It's a bit odd to have the requirements and the solution specified
> in the same document; you might want to split them out into separate
> documents. I suspect you will be able to get consensus on the
> requirements faster than the mechanism. Also, as a minor procedural
> point, if this work is put on the charters, I think the requirements
> will be specified in SIPPING, and the mechanism will be specified
> in SIP.

Your are right. When the I-D is updated they will be two documents 
(requirements, and proposal).

Since I am kind of new comer in SIP community, I am not sure which 
WG should handle these problem.

> Speaking to the mechanism, the current draft has the following
> text, which acknowledges but rejects Unicode language tags:
> 
>     UTF-8 allows to represent any UCS-2/4 characters, including recent 
>     proposed "language tag" which used to specifying the languages 
>     information for following character strings. However, the deployed 
>     SIP implementations may not have enough knowledge to handle them 
>     correctly.  
> 
> Your assertion that most (if not all) deployed SIP implementations
> don't support Unicode language tagging is almost certainly correct;
> however, since *no* existing SIP implementations support the mechanism
> proposed in your draft, it seems to be a wash. In other words,
> this argument provides no motivation for discarding Unicode language
> tagging.

I think major differece between "language tag" and my proposal is 
ease of ignorance. The inline language tag is hard to separate the 
language tagging and other parts.

I cannot provide enough evidence about this statement, but here is 
the 3rd party article which described why "language tag" is 
discourged in most cases.

http://xml.coverpages.org/languageIdentifiers.html#unicode

> I invite members of the SIP community to chime in with their opinion
> on this topic. As I see it, the primary differences involved are:
> 
> - Selecting Unicode language tags would be more standard, inasmuch
>   as the representation of languages in this fashion is likely
>   to see far wider deployment than any SIP-specific solution. So,
>   for example, if the receiving UA uses Unicode libraries that
>   inherently understand language tags, it makes implementation much
>   simpler.
> 
> - Shingo Fujimoto's proposal is more space efficient. For example,
>   to encode a set of ISO639/ISO3166 (language, country) codes into
>   a header takes only 9 additional octets, instead of the 24 that
>   UTF-8 encoding of language tags would; encoding just the language
>   takes 6 additional octets instead of 12.

I hope SIP-WG will also pay attension to my proposal.

The URL for my I-D is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fujimoto-sipping-header-lang-00.txt

Best.
-- 
======================================
          SHINGO FUJIMOTO
     FUJITSU LABORATORIES LIMITED
E-mail: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip