[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: rfc2277 compliance
At 01:13 PM 11/9/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>rfc2277 (IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages) says:
>> 2. Where to do internationalization
>> Where protocol
>> elements look like text tokens, such as in many IETF application
>> layer protocols, protocols MUST specify which parts are protocol and
>> which are text. [WR 184.108.40.206]
>Which means [Syntaxes] should specify which syntaxes contain text and
>which ones do not.
The specification (as a whole) should be reasonably clear as to whether
a protocol element is character data or not. We need not, however,
state the obvious. That is, I don't think we need to add "values of
the Directory String syntax are character data". However, if there
are cases where you believe the specification is not clear as to whether
values of a syntax are character data or not, please note so to the list.
>> 4.2. Requirement for language tagging
>> Protocols that transfer text MUST provide for carrying information
>> about the language of that text.
>This implies that LDAP needs something like an Accept-Language extended
>operation similar to the HTTP Accept-Language: header.
>It would specify which languages the client prefers for LDAPResult.diagnosticMessage and
>text in unsolicited notifications.
While not a complete solution, LDAP addresses this through language tags
options (RFC 2596). Additionally, servers can use other information
(such as associated with authenticated users) to localize such text.
While certainly one could develop an extension to address this issue,
and I would encourage those interested to propose such an extension
to the IETF, I think LDAPBIS should view such as a new feature and
hence beyond our scope.