John Hudson scripsit:
> I don't think anyone is questioning that language tagging is a good and
> useful thing. The question is whether using character codepoints as
> language identifiers is a good thing. I'm inclined to the view that it is
> not, and that language tagging should be handled, along with most (all?)
> other tagging, at a higher level.
I think it's time to remember the limited purpose for which Plane 14
tagging was created: plain-text protocol messages. The idea is that
when contacting an IETF-protocol server, it should be able to report
back in various languages, using plain-text tagging to indicate which
language you are getting (or, if it reports in multiple languages,
which is which).
This was considered to be a situation where heavyweight (XML, etc.)
metadata was unnecessary:
--> RETR 32
<-- 522 LTAG{en}I have no clueLTAG{art-lojban}mi na jimpe
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
Unified Gaelic in Cyrillic script!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang
