Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed. Internet-Draft Yahoo! Inc Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved) M. Davis, Ed. Expires: August 27, 2006 Google February 23, 2006 Matching of Language Tags draft-ietf-ltru-matching-10 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document describes different mechanisms for comparing, matching, and evaluating language tags. Possible algorithms for language negotiation or content selection, filtering, and lookup are described. This document, in combination with RFC 3066bis (Ed.: replace "3066bis" with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Basic Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Extended Language Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. The Language Priority List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Types of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1. Basic Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Extended Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24 Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 1. Introduction Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of languages. There are many reasons why one would want to identify the language used when presenting or requesting information or in some specific set of information items or "content". One use for language identifiers, such as those defined in [RFC3066bis], is to select content by matching the associated language tags to a user's language preferences. This document defines a syntax (called a language range (Section 2)) for specifying items in the user's language preferences (called a language priority list (Section 2.3)), as well as several schemes for selecting or filtering sets of content by comparing the content's language tags to the user's preferences. Applications, protocols, or specifications will have varying needs and requirements that affect the choice of a suitable matching scheme. Depending on the choice of scheme, there are various options left to the implementation. Protocols that implement a matching scheme either need to specify each particular choice or indicate the options that are left to the implementation to decide. This document is divided into three main sections. One describes how to indicate a user's preferences using language ranges. Then a section describes various schemes for matching these ranges to a set of language tags. There is also a section that deals with various practical considerations that apply to implementing and using these schemes. This document, in combination with [RFC3066bis] (Ed.: replace "3066bis" globally in this document with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14), replaces [RFC3066], which replaced [RFC1766]. The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 2. The Language Range Language Tags [RFC3066bis] are used to identify the language of some information item or content. Applications or protocols that use language tags are often faced with the problem of identifying sets of content that share certain language attributes. For example, HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] describes one such mechanism in its discussion of the Accept-Language header (Section 14.4), which is used when selecting content from servers based on the language of that content. When selecting content according to its language, it is useful to have a mechanism for identifying sets of language tags that share specific attributes. This allows users to select or filter content based on specific requirements. Such an identifier is called a "Language Range". There are different types of language range, whose specific attributes vary to match their application. Language ranges are similar in content to language tags: they consist of a sequence of subtags separated by hyphens. In a language range, each subtag MUST either be a sequence of ASCII alphanumeric characters or the single character '*' (%2A, ASTERISK). The character '*' is a "wildcard" that matches any sequence of subtags. Restrictions on the meaning and use of wildcards vary according to the type of language range. Language tags and thus language ranges are to be treated as case- insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning. Matching of language tags to language ranges MUST be done in a case- insensitive manner. 2.1. Basic Language Range A "basic language range" identifies the set of language tags that all begin with the same sequence of subtags. Each range consists of a sequence of alphanumeric subtags separated by hyphens. The basic language range is defined by the following ABNF [RFC4234]: language-range = (1*8ALPHA *("-" 1*8alphanum)) / "*" alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT Basic language ranges (originally described by HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] and later [RFC3066]) have the same syntax as an [RFC3066] language tag or are the single character "*". They differ from the language tags defined in [RFC3066bis] only in that there is no requirement that they be "well-formed" or be validated against the IANA Language Subtag Registry (although such ill-formed ranges will probably not match anything). (Note that the ABNF [RFC4234] in [RFC2616] is Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 incorrect, since it disallows the use of digits anywhere in the 'language-range': this is mentioned in the errata) Use of a basic language range seems to imply that there is a semantic relationship between language tags that share the same prefix. While this is often the case, it is not always true and users should note that the set of language tags that match a specific language range may not represent mutually intelligible languages. 2.2. Extended Language Range Basic language ranges allow users to specify a set of language tags that share the same initial subtags. Occasionally users will wish to select a set of language tags based on the presence of specific subtags. For example, a user might wish to select all language tags that contains the region subtag 'CH'. Extended language ranges are useful in specifying a particular sequence of subtags that appear in the set of matching tags without having to specify all of the intervening subtags. An extended language range can be represented by the following ABNF: extended-language-range = (1*8ALPHA / "*") *("-" (1*8alphanum / "*")) Figure 2: Extended Language Range The wildcard subtag '*' MAY occur in any position in the extended language range, where it matches any sequence of subtags that might occur in that position in a language tag. However wildcards outside the first position in an extended language range are ignored by most matching schemes. Use of multiple wildcards SHOULD NOT be taken to imply that a certain number of subtags will appear in the matching set of language tags. Implementations that specify basic ranges MAY map extended language ranges to basic language ranges: if the first subtag is a "*" then the entire range is treated as "*" (which matches the default content), otherwise each wildcard subtag is removed. For example, if the language range were "en-*-US", then the range would be mapped to "en-US". 2.3. The Language Priority List When users specify a language preference they often need to specify a prioritized list of language ranges in order to best reflect their language preferences. This is especially true for speakers of minority languages. A speaker of Breton in France, for example, may Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 specify "be" followed by "fr", meaning that if Breton is available, it is preferred, but otherwise French is the best alternative. It can get more complex: a speaker may wish to fall back from Skolt Sami to Northern Sami to Finnish. A "Language Priority List" is a prioritized or weighted list of language ranges. One well known example of such a list is the "Accept-Language" header defined in RFC 2616 [RFC2616] (see Section 14.4) and RFC 3282 [RFC3282]. A simple list of ranges, i.e. one that contains no weighting information, is considered to be in descending order of priority. The various matching operations described in this document include considerations for using a language priority list. This document does not define any syntax for a language priority list; defining such a syntax is the responsibility of the protocol, application, or implementation that uses it. When given as examples in this document, language priority lists will be shown as a quoted sequence of ranges separated by semicolons, like this: "en; fr; zh-Hant" (which would be read as "English before French before Chinese as written in the Traditional script"). Where a language priority list provides "quality weights" for the language ranges, such as the use of Q weights in the syntax of the "Accept-Language" header (defined in [RFC2616], Section 14.4, and [RFC3282]), language ranges without a weight are given values equal to the value of the previous language range (processing from first to last). If the first language range has no weight, it is given a value of 1.0. Then language ranges with zero weights are removed. For example, "fr, en;q=0.5, de, it" becomes "fr;q=1.0, en;q=0.5, de;q=0.5, it;q=0.5". The language priority list is then sorted from highest priority to lowest, with language ranges that share the same weights remain in the same order as in the original language priority list. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 3. Types of Matching Matching language ranges to language tags can be done in a number of different ways. This section describes several different matching schemes, as well as the considerations for choosing between them. Protocols and specifications SHOULD clearly indicate the particular mechanism used in selecting or matching language tags. There are several types of matching scheme. This document presents two types: those that produce zero or more information items (called "filtering") and those that produce a single information item for a given request (called "lookup"). Implementations or protocols MAY use different matching schemes than the ones described in this document, as long as those mechanisms are clearly specified. 3.1. Choosing a Type of Matching Applications, protocols, and specifications are faced with the decision of what type of matching to use. Sometimes, different styles of matching might be suited for different kinds of processing within a particular application or protocol. Language tag matching is a tool, and does not by itself specify a complete procedure for the use of language tags. Such procedures are intimately tied to the application protocol in which they occur. When specifying a protocol operation using matching, the protocol MUST specify: o Which type(s) of language tag matching it uses o Whether the operation returns a single result (lookup) or a possibly empty set of results (filtering) o For lookup, what the result is when no matching tag is found. For instance, a protocol might define the result as failure of the operation, an empty value, returning some protocol defined or implementation defined default, or returning i-default [RFC2277]. This document describes three types of matching: 1. Basic Filtering (Section 3.2.1) matches a language priority list consisting of basic language ranges (Section 2.1) to sets of language tags. 2. Extended Filtering (Section 3.2.2) matches a language priority list consisting of extended language ranges (Section 2.2) to sets Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 of language tags. 3. Lookup (Section 3.3) matches a language priority list consisting of basic language ranges to sets of language tags find the _exactly_ one language tag that best matches the range. Both types of filtering can be used to produce a set of results (such as a collection of documents) by comparing the user's preferences to language tags associated with the set of content. For example, when performing a search, one might use filtering to limit the results to documents tagged as being written in French. They might also be used when deciding whether to perform a language-sensitive process on some content. For example, a process might cause paragraphs whose language tag matched the language range "nl" to be displayed in italics within a document. Lookup produces the single result that best matches a given set of user preferences, so it is useful in cases in which only a single item can be returned. For example, if a process were to insert a human readable error message into a protocol header, it might select the text based on the user's language priority list. Since the process can return only one item, it must choose a single item and it must return some item, even if no content's language tag matches the language priority list supplied by the user. The types of matching in this document are designed so that implementations are not required to validate or understand any of the semantics of the language tags or ranges or of the subtags in them. None of them require access to the IANA Language Subtag Registry (see Section 3 in [RFC3066bis]). This simplifies and speeds the performance of implementations. Regardless of the matching scheme chosen, protocols and implementations MAY canonicalize language tags and ranges by mapping grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern equivalents. If an implementation canonicalizes either ranges or tags, then the implementation will require the IANA Language Subtag Registry information for that purpose. Implementations MAY also use semantic information external to the registry when matching tags. For example, the primary language subtags 'nn' (Nynorsk Norwegian) and 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) might both be usefully matched to the more general subtag 'no' (Norwegian). Or an implementation might infer that content labeled "zh-CN" is more likely to match the range "zh- Hans" than equivalent content labeled "zh-TW". 3.2. Filtering Filtering is used to select the set of language tags that matches a Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 given language priority list and return the associated content. It is called "filtering" because this set might contain no items at all or it might return an arbitrarily large number of matching items: as many items as match the language priority list, thus "filtering out" the non-matching items. In filtering, the language range represents the _least_ specific (that is, the fewest number of subtags) language tag which is an acceptable match. All of the language tags in the matching set of tags will have an equal or greater number of subtags than the language range. Every non-wildcard subtag in the language range will appear in every one of the matching language tags. For example, if the language priority list consists of the range "de-CH", one might see tags such as "de-CH-1996" but one will never see a tag such as "de" (because the 'CH' subtag is missing). If the language priority list (see Section 2.3) contains more than one range, the content returned is typically ordered in descending level of preference. Some examples of applications where filtering might be appropriate include: o Applying a style to sections of a document in a particular set of languages. o Displaying the set of documents containing a particular set of keywords written in a specific set of languages. o Selecting all email items written in a specific set of languages. The content returned MAY either be ordered or unordered according to the priority in the language priority list (and other criteria), according to the needs of the application or protocol. 3.2.1. Basic Filtering When filtering using basic language ranges, each basic language range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to priority. A particular language tag matches a language range if it exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the tag such that the first character following the prefix is "-". For example, the language-range "de-de" matches the language tag "de-DE- 1996", but not the language tags "de-Deva" or "de-Latn-DE". The special range "*" in a language priority list matches any tag. A protocol which uses language ranges MAY specify additional rules about the semantics of "*"; for instance, HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 specifies that the range "*" matches only languages not matched by any other range within an "Accept-Language" header. 3.2.2. Extended Filtering When filtering using extended language ranges, each extended language range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to priority. A particular language range is compared to each language tag using the following process: Compare the first subtag in the extended language tag to the first subtag in the language tag in a case insensitive manner. If the first subtag in the range is "*", it matches any value. Otherwise the two values must match or the overall match fails. Take each non-wildcard subtag in the language range and compare it to the next subtag in the language tag in turn until a matching subtag is found or the langauge tag is exhausted. If the end of the language tag is found first, the match fails. If a match is found, this step is repeated with the next non-wildcard subtag in the language range (and beginning with the next subtag in the language tag) until the list of subtags in the language range is exhausted or the match fails. Subtags not specified, including those at the end of the language range, are thus treated as if assigned the wildcard value "*". Extended filtering works, therefore, much like basic filtering. For example, the extended language range "de-*-DE" matches all of the following tags: de-DE de-Latn-DE de-Latf-DE de-DE-x-goethe de-Latn-DE-1996 3.3. Lookup Lookup is used to select the single language tag that best matches the language priority list for a given request and return the associated content. When performing lookup, each language range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according to priority. By contrast with filtering, each language range represents the _most_ specific tag which is an acceptable match. The first Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 content found with a matching tag, according to the user's priority, is considered the closest match and is the content returned. For example, if the language range is "de-ch", a lookup operation might produce content with the tags "de" or "de-CH" but never one with the tag "de-CH-1996". Usually if no content matches the request, the "default" content is returned. For example, if an application inserts some dynamic content into a document, returning an empty string if there is no exact match is not an option. Instead, the application "falls back" until it finds a matching language tag associated with a suitable piece of content to insert. Examples of lookup might include: o Selection of a template containing the text for an automated email response. o Selection of a item containing some text for inclusion in a particular Web page. o Selection of a string of text for inclusion in an error log. In the lookup scheme, the language range is progressively truncated from the end until a matching piece of content is located. For example, starting with the range "zh-Hant-CN-x-private", the lookup progressively searches for content as shown below: Range to match: zh-Hant-CN-x-private 1. zh-Hant-CN-x-private 2. zh-Hant-CN 3. zh-Hant 4. zh 5. (default content) Figure 3: Example of a Lookup Fallback Pattern This scheme allows some flexibility in finding a match. For example, lookup provides better results for cases in which content is not available that exactly matches the user request than if the default language for the system or content were returned immediately. Not every specific level of tag granularity is usually available or language content may be sparsely populated, so "falling back" through the subtag sequence provides more opportunity to find a match between available language tags and the user's request. The default behavior when no tag matches the language priority list is implementation defined. An implementation might, for example, return content with no language tag; might supply content with an empty language tag value (the built-in attribute xml:lang in [XML10] Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 permits the empty value); might be a particular language designated for the bit of content being selected; or it might select the tag "i-default" (see [RFC2277]). When performing lookup using a language priority list, the progressive search MUST proceed to consider each language range in the list before finding the default content or empty tag. One common way for an application or implementation to provide for a default is to allow a specific language range to be set as the default for a specific type of request. This language range is then treated as if it were appended to the end of the language priority list as a whole, rather than after each item in the language priority list. For example, if a particular user's language priority list were "fr-FR; zh-Hant" and the program doing the matching had a default language range of "ja-JP", the program would search for content as follows: 1. fr-FR 2. fr 3. zh-Hant // next language 4. zh 5. (search for the default content) a. ja-JP b. ja c. (implementation defined default) Figure 4: Lookup Using a Language Priority List Implementations SHOULD ignore extensions and unrecognized private-use subtags when performing lookup, since these subtags are usually orthogonal to the user's request. The special language range "*" matches any language tag. In the lookup scheme, this range does not convey enough information by itself to determine which content is most appropriate, since it matches everything. If the language range "*" is the only one in the language priority list, it matches the default content. If the language range "*" is followed by other language ranges, it should be skipped. In some cases, the language priority list might contain one or more extended language ranges (as, for example, when the same language priority list is used as input for both lookup and filtering operations). Wildcard values in an extended language range normally match any value that occurs in that position in a language tag. Since only one item can be returned for any given lookup request, wildcards in a language range have to be processed in a consistent Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 manner or the same request will produce widely varying results. Implementations that accept extended language ranges MUST define which content is returned when more than one item matches the extended language range. For example, an implementation could return the matching tag that is first in ASCII-order. If the language range were "*-CH" and the set of tags included "de-CH", "fr-CH", and "it-CH", then the tag "de-CH" would be returned. Another example would be for an implementation to map the extended language ranges to basic ranges. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 4. Other Considerations When working with language ranges and matching schemes, there are some additional points that may influence the choice of either. 4.1. Choosing Language Ranges Users indicate their language preferences via the choice of a language range or the list of language ranges in a language priority list. The type of matching affects what the best choice is for a given user. Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning of the subtags. The language range (or its subtags) is usually compared in a case-insensitive manner to each language tag being matched, using basic string processing. Users SHOULD avoid subtags that add no distinguishing value to a language range. Generally, the fewer subtags that appear in the language range, the more content the range will match. Most notably, script subtags SHOULD NOT be used to form a language range in combination with language subtags that have a matching Suppress-Script field in their registry entry. Thus the language range "en-Latn" is probably inappropriate in most cases (because the vast majority of English documents are written in the Latin script and thus the 'en' language subtag has a Suppress-Script field for 'Latn' in the registry). When working with tags and ranges, note that extensions and most private-use subtags are orthogonal to language tag matching, in that they specify additional attributes of the text not related to the goals of most matching schemes. Users SHOULD avoid using these subtags in language ranges, since they interfere with the selection of available content. When used in language tags (as opposed to ranges), these subtags normally do not interfere with filtering (Section 3), since they appear at the end of the tag and will match all prefixes. Private-use and Extension subtags are normally orthogonal to language tag fallback. Implementations or specifications that use a lookup (Section 3.3) matching scheme often ignore unrecognized private-use and extension subtags when performing language tag fallback. In addition, since these subtags are always at the end of the sequence of subtags, their use in language tags normally doesn't interfere with the use of ranges that omit them in the filtering (Section 3.2) matching schemes described below. However, they do interfere with filtering when used in language ranges and SHOULD be avoided in Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 ranges as a result. Applications, specifications, or protocols that choose not to interpret one or more private-use or extension subtags SHOULD NOT remove or modify these extensions in content that they are processing. When a language tag instance is to be used in a specific, known protocol, and is not being passed through to other protocols, language tags MAY be filtered to remove subtags and extensions that are not supported by that protocol. Such filtering SHOULD be avoided, if possible, since it removes information that might be relevant to services on the other end of the protocol that would make use of that information. Some applications of language tags might want or need to consider extensions and private-use subtags when matching tags. If extensions and private-use subtags are included in a matching or filtering process that utilizes one of the schemes described in this document, then the implementation SHOULD canonicalize the language tags and/or ranges before performing the matching. Note that language tag processors that claim to be "well-formed" processors as defined in [RFC3066bis] generally fall into this category. 4.2. Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges Selecting content using language ranges requires some understanding by users of what they are selecting. The meaning of the various subtags in a language range are identical to their meaning in a language tag (see Section 4.2 in [RFC3066bis]), with the addition that the wildcard "*" represents any matching sequence of values. 4.3. Considerations for Private Use Subtags Private-use subtags require private agreement between the parties that intend to use or exchange language tags that use them and great caution SHOULD be used in employing them in content or protocols intended for general use. Private-use subtags are simply useless for information exchange without prior arrangement. The value and semantic meaning of private-use tags and of the subtags used within such a language tag are not defined. Matching private- use tags using language ranges or extended language ranges can result in unpredictable content being returned. 4.4. Length Considerations in Matching Language ranges are very similar to language tags in terms of content and usage. The same types of restrictions on length that apply to language tags could also apply to language ranges. Implementation, Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 protocol, and specificiation authors SHOULD apply the considerations in [RFC3066bis] Section 4.3 (Length Considerations) where appropriate to language ranges and language priority lists. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 5. IANA Considerations This document presents no new or existing considerations for IANA. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 6. Changes This is the first version of this document. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 7. Security Considerations Language ranges used in content negotiation might be used to infer the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential targets for surveillance. In addition, unique or highly unusual language ranges or combinations of language ranges might be used to track a specific individual's activities. This is a special case of the general problem that anything you send is visible to the receiving party. It is useful to be aware that such concerns can exist in some cases. The evaluation of the exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible countermeasures, is left to each application or protocol. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 8. Character Set Considerations Language tags permit only the characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and HYPHEN- MINUS (%x2D). Language ranges also use the character ASTERISK (%x2A). These characters are present in most character sets, so presentation or exchange of language tags or ranges should not be constrained by character set issues. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998. [RFC3066bis] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", October 2005, <http:// www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt>. [RFC4234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005. 9.2. Informative References [RFC1766] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995. [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC2616errata] IETF, "HTTP/1.1 Specification Errata", 10 2004, <http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>. [RFC3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001. [RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282, May 2002. [XML10] Bray (et al), T., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", 02 2004. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 Appendix A. Acknowledgements Any list of contributors is bound to be incomplete; please regard the following as only a selection from the group of people who have contributed to make this document what it is today. The contributors to [RFC3066bis], [RFC3066] and [RFC1766], each of which is a precursor to this document, made enormous contributions directly or indirectly to this document and are generally responsible for the success of language tags. The following people (in alphabetical order by family name) contributed to this document: Harald Alvestrand, Jeremy Carroll, John Cowan, Martin Duerst, Frank Ellermann, Doug Ewell, Marion Gunn, Kent Karlsson, Ira McDonald, M. Patton, Randy Presuhn, Eric van der Poel, Markus Scherer, and many, many others. Very special thanks must go to Harald Tveit Alvestrand, who originated RFCs 1766 and 3066, and without whom this document would not have been possible. For this particular document, John Cowan originated the scoring scheme. Mark Davis originated the scheme described in Section 3.3. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 Authors' Addresses Addison Phillips (editor) Yahoo! Inc Email: addison at inter dash locale dot com Mark Davis (editor) Google Email: mark dot davis at macchiato dot com Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ltru-matching February 2006 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Phillips & Davis Expires August 27, 2006 [Page 24]
