Timo Sirainen wrote:
+1. Even if there weren't syncing issues, the former feels kind of bloaty. On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 16:13 +0000, eburger wrote:[as contributor] I lean toward the latter, as we are talking about a modifier to an object, not additional metadata that will get out of sync.
True.
I think the latter shouldn't be a problem, as we should have a default language. My argument in favour of using another annotation is that I would like to avoid the need for clients to extract the language tag from a single string. Also if language tagging doesn't get deployed, then there is no impact on clients.For example, your server crashes. Now you have hanging language tags or descriptions without languages.
But anyway, It looks like people prefer a single structured string.Despite discouragement of use of Unicode plane 14 I am thinking that would be the best way. Reading <http://osdir.com/ml/text.unicode.general/2002-11/msg00014.html> just made this feeling stronger.
Chris says that he doesn't see a particular problem with that.So, any objections of recommending use of Unicode plane 14, but making it optional?
_______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade