> From: Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> > > This > > is all what this proposition is about. This proposition is to give > > _one_shot_ in a _standardised_ way the language, the script and the > > country. > > This was discussed during Last Call of the previous non-IETF (individual > submission) attempt. IIRC David Singer brought up several examples of > other pieces of information (e.g. legal/copyright variations) that could > also be negotiated and which might affect the presentation of content (or > choice among alternative content). Lumping all of these separate items > into > one tag is a poor design as it impedes negotiation and tends toward > lengthy > tags which are incompatible with fixed-length mechanisms such as MIME > encoded-words. I agree that it would be poor design to incorporate other pieces of information such as legal/copyright variations into language tags, but as such pieces of information are not supported by the draft, this appears to be irrelevant. We should rather focus on whether it is good design to incorporate information related to linguistic and written-form attributes, as supported in the draft, into a single tag. The consensus of the LTRU working group is that it is. For instance, the use of separate tags for language and script were considered and rejected on the basis that the two are not entirely orthogonal. Clear examples of this was considered: while the intent of Accept-Language: ar, az-Cyrl, ru is clear, the intent of Accept-Language: ar, az, ru Accept-Script: Cyrl or of Accept-Language: ar, az, ru Accept-Script: Arab, Cyrl is not clear, nor is it obvious how rules could be specified that would make the intent clear, or that would permit expressing the preferences reflected in the first instance. It was also the consensus of the WG that the concerns of fixed-length mechanisms have been adequately addressed. This consensus was taken after careful consideration of IETF protocols known to involve length limitations. It should be noted in this regard that the likely length of language tags under this draft is no different than under RFC 3066; the only difference is that this draft imposes greater constraints on the form and meaning of subtag elements. > While there is some mention of this issue in the document > under discussion, its treatment and resolving the underlying issue in a > manner that would minimize the problems are lacking. It's unclear what is meant by "the underlying issue". Please clarify. > Tagging identifies characteristics of a particular piece of content. For > that purpose alone, it makes little difference (other than regarding the > aforementioned compatibility issues with existing IETF mechanisms) whether > the characteristics are lumped or separate. On the contrary, it makes little difference only if the characteristics in question are completely orthogonal. As pointed out above, the characteristics of linguistic variety and written form are not orthogonal, particularly when it comes to expressing user preferences, and that it *does* make a difference if they are split into separate metadata attributes or they are lumped together into a single metadata attribute. > While that may be used to infer something about the content > provider, such inferences may be unreliable... Quite so. This point was discussed in the WG. > Negotiation of characteristics is where several issues arise... > As a result of issues > with that approach, the LTRU WG was established with a charter to produce > a > BCP (for registration procedures) and a separate Standards Track document > for topics such as algorithms which are unsuitable for BCP. The LTRU WG is a little behind its initially-proposed schedule for milestones, but otherwise is on track to complete the approved milestones in order. Thus, the latter document is in progress. > The proposed > mechanism in the individual submission of late last year (essentially > unchanged in the LTRU product (see discussion below)) does not address the > language range issue, and that issue is greatly complicated by conflating > separate characteristics into a single tag. It is unclear how the drafts in question can be critiqued for failing to address "the language range issue" (which issue is not clearly identified here, btw) given the explicit plan in the charter that algorithms for matching be addressed in a separate document to be completed after these drafts. > Addressing the language range > issue is not a WG work item and, unfortunately, the algorithm issue is > scheduled to be a later work item than the registry issue. Added to that > is the fact that the specification of the tag format is mixed with > registration procedures. As according to the charter. > Negotiation of separate characteristics is much > simpler than that of a combined conflation of characteristics; each > characteristic can be assigned separate preference values, and irrelevant > characteristics (e.g. script w.r.t. spoken language) can be easily ignored. Negotiation of separate attributes involving inter-related characteristics is *not* simpler, as pointed out above. The draft fully allows for irrelevant characteristics (e.g. script wrt audio content) to be ignored. Again, what has been provided in the draft is in accordance with the charter of the WG. > As negotiation and related issues represent a critical technical issue for > the design of language tags (viz. keeping separate characteristics out of > *language* tags), it is essential that such negotiation issues be > considered > carefully before specifying the format of tags. Unfortunately, that has > not > been done, and considering the published WG milestones it appears that > that > issue has not been taken into consideration... However, it > appears that the WG has not considered the issues, with the effect that > the > WG product lacks the "particular care" expected of BCP documents (RFC > 2026). It is unclear on what basis it is asserted that these issues have not been considered by the WG. I believe most of the WG members would feel that they have been reasonably taken into consideration. Again, what has been submitted for last call is in accordance with the charter; just as it is not reliable to infer something about a content provider from a language tag, so also it is not reliable to infer from the order of milestones in the charter that matching issues were not taken into consideration in preparation of these drafts. > Note that it is not the registration procedural issues that are typical of > BCP documents that are problematic; rather it is the conflation of > separate > characteristics into a single tag syntax, specified in the same document, > which raises problems related to content negotiation. Bruce asserts (a) that there is conflation of separate characteristics, and that (b) this creates problems in content negotiation. The WG determined that the characteristics conflated into a single tag are not independent, and that it would be *separation* into separate attributes that would result in problems in content negotiation, not their combination into a single attribute. > Another large part of > the problem is WG management; in addition to the issues raised by John > Klensin the last time that LTRU participation was discussed on the IETF > discussion list -- and with which I wholeheartedly agree -- it appears > that > management of WG participant conduct has been rather lax; proponents of > the > individual submission effort who are participating in the WG tend to > resort > to ad-hominem attacks when a problem is identified or when an alternative > approach is raised, with no visible intervention by the WG co-chairs. > That > has also (i.e. in addition to the factors which John identified) had the > effect of limiting WG participation by individuals. It's unclear what bearing this has on what improvements can be made to the drafts in fulfillment of the WG charter. I believe several WG participants felt that management of conduct was lax, particularly in relation to a very small number of participants with a penchant for certain behaviours that would have challenged the best of moderators. As for the accusation that proponents of an earlier individual submission engaged in ad-hominem attacks that went without intervention by the WG co-chairs, resulting in the limitation of participation in the WG by other individuals, in the absence of specific evidence, this appears itself to be no more than an ad-hominem attack on those individuals and on the WG co-chairs. To my knowledge, there was only one individual in relation to whom other members of the WG acted in any way that might discourage or hinder his participation, and such actions arose only in response to repeated provocation from that individual. > Specification of "language" tag syntax which conflates other content > characteristics prior to open and professional discussion of negotiation > issues and alternative approaches would be a premature lock-in of a design > choice. As the document under discussion specifies a conflation of such > characteristics without open discussion It is asserted that there has been no open discussion of the matter of conflation. This is untrue. It is asserted that there has been no open discussion of alternatives; the only concrete alternative presented for discussion was to have separate language and script tags, which alternative was considered and rejected due to problems that arise in content negotiation. The drafts submitted for review are in accordance with the charter, and I believe I can say that in the opinion of WG members matters of conflation and of negotiation issues were taken into consideration, and were discussed in an open and professional manner. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf