|
I have a few questions about RFC 2596 (Language Codes in
LDAP).
Section 3.1 says "Multiple language options may be present on
a particular value.".
To me, this says the following is allowable:
cn;lang-en-US;lang-ja: JoeBob
Is that correct? If so, I believe the following
assumption is also correct:
Any value held in an attribute with more than one language
option (i.e. the example above) does NOT exist in the attribute with a subset of
those language options. In other words, the example above does NOT imply
that there are values like:
cn;lang-en-US: JoeBob
cn;lang-ja: JoeBob
Right?
I don't want to believe part of Section 3.3. It says that
given the filter (name;lang-en-US"=Billy Ray), that the following is a
match:
CN;lang-EN-US;dynamic: Billy Ray
To me, this is a different, distinct subtype. In other words:
cn;foo is a subtype of cn
cn;foo;bar is NOT a subtype of cn;foo, it is a direct subtype of
cn.
Am I off in my thinking? RFC 2251 says that "An AttributeDescription with
one or more options is treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any
options".
Also, both my cn;foo;bar example and all the CN;lang-EN-US;dynamic examples
in 2596 are invalid. RFC 2251 states that the options must appear in ascending
order.
At the end of section 3.3, it says: "Thus in general, clients SHOULD NOT
use the language code option in AttributeDescription fields in search filters".
Is this because they might get more matches than they bargained for? It would be
nice if the "Thus in general" part was spelled out a bit more.
Jim |