[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 4647

Network Working Group                                   A. Phillips, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Yahoo! Inc.
Obsoletes: 3066 (if approved)                              M. Davis, Ed.
Expires: October 8, 2006                                          Google
                                                           April 6, 2006


                       Matching of Language Tags
                      draft-ietf-ltru-matching-12

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 October 8, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document describes different mechanisms for comparing and
   matching 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 October 8, 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 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.  Implementation Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.1.  Basic Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.2.  Extended Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.4.  Lookup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.4.1.  Default Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   4.  Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.1.  Choosing Language Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.2.  Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.3.  Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.4.  Length Considerations for Language Ranges  . . . . . . . . 18
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 25






















Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 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.

   Applications, protocols, or specifications that use language
   identifiers, such as the language tags defined in [RFC3066bis],
   sometimes need to match 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 list of language preferences
   (called a language priority list (Section 2.3)), as well as several
   schemes for selecting or filtering sets of language tags by comparing
   the 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.

   This document describes: how to indicate a user's preferences using
   language ranges; three schemes for matching these ranges to a set of
   language tags; and the 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 October 8, 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


2.  The Language Range

   Language tags [RFC3066bis] are used to help identify languages,
   whether spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled, for the
   purpose of communication.  Applications, protocols, or specifications
   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.

   It is, thus, useful to have a mechanism for identifying sets of
   language tags that share specific attributes.  This allows users to
   select or filter the language tags based on specific requirements.
   Such an identifier is called a "language range".

   There are different types of language range, whose specific
   attributes vary according to their application.  Language ranges are
   similar 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.  The meaning and uses 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" consists of a sequence of alphanumeric
   subtags separated by hyphens.  It 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.  Such ill-formed ranges will probably not match
   anything.  Note that the ABNF [RFC4234] in [RFC2616] is incorrect,



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   since it disallows the use of digits anywhere in the 'language-range'
   (see: [RFC2616errata]).

2.2.  Extended Language Range

   Occasionally users will wish to select a set of language tags based
   on the presence of specific subtags.  An "extended language range"
   describes a user's language preference as an ordered sequence of
   subtags.  For example, a user might wish to select all language tags
   that contain the region subtag 'CH' (Switzerland).  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 '*' can 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 are ignored by Extended Filtering (see Section
   3.2.2).  The use or absence of one or more wildcards cannot be taken
   to imply that a certain number of subtags will appear in the matching
   set of language tags.

2.3.  The Language Priority List

   A user's language preferences will often need to specify more than
   one language range and thus users 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 specify
   "br" 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 user 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].

   The various matching operations described in this document include
   considerations for using a language priority list.  This document



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   does not define the syntax for a language priority list; defining
   such a syntax is the responsibility of the protocol, application, or
   specification that uses it.  When given as examples in this document,
   language priority lists will be shown as a quoted sequence of ranges
   separated by commas, like this: "en, fr, zh-Hant" (which would be
   read as "English before French before Chinese as written in the
   Traditional script").

   A simple list of ranges is considered to be in descending order of
   priority.  Other language priority lists provide "quality weights"
   for the language ranges in order to specify the relative priority of
   the user's language preferences.  An example of this would be the use
   of "q" values in the syntax of the "Accept-Language" header (defined
   in [RFC2616], Section 14.4, and [RFC3282]).





































Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


3.  Types of Matching

   Matching language ranges to language tags can be done in many
   different ways.  This section describes three such matching schemes,
   as well as the considerations for choosing between them.  Protocols
   and specifications requiring conformance to this specification MUST
   clearly indicate the particular mechanism used in selecting or
   matching language tags.

   There are two types of matching scheme in this document.  A matching
   scheme that produces zero or more matching language tags is called
   "filtering".  A matching scheme that produces exactly one match for a
   given request is called "lookup".

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 are suited to different kinds of processing within
   a particular application or protocol.

   This document describes three types of matching:

   1.  Basic Filtering (Section 3.3.1) matches a language priority list
       consisting of basic language ranges (Section 2.1) to sets of
       language tags.

   2.  Extended Filtering (Section 3.3.2) matches a language priority
       list consisting of extended language ranges (Section 2.2) to sets
       of language tags.

   3.  Lookup (Section 3.4) matches a language priority list consisting
       of basic language ranges to sets of language tags to find the one
       _exact_ language tag that best matches the range.

   Filtering can be used to produce a set of results (such as a
   collection of documents) by comparing the user's preferences to a set
   of language tags.  For example, when performing a search, one might
   use filtering to limit the results to items tagged as being in the
   French language.  Filtering can 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 the user's
   preferences from the list of available tags, so it is useful in cases
   in which a single item is required (and for which only a single item
   can be returned).  For example, if a process were to insert a human



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   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 none of the content's language tags match
   the language priority list supplied by the user.

3.2.  Implementation Considerations

   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 default item is (or the sequence of
      operations or configuration information used to determine the
      default) 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].

   Applications, protocols, and specifications are not required to
   validate or understand any of the semantics of the language tags or
   ranges or of the subtags in them, nor do they require access to the
   IANA Language Subtag Registry (see Section 3 in [RFC3066bis]).  This
   simplifies implementation.

   However, designers of applications, protocols, or specifications are
   encouraged to use the information from the IANA Language Subtag
   Registry to support canonicalizing language tags and ranges in order
   to map grandfathered and obsolete tags or subtags into modern
   equivalents.

   Applications, protocols, or specifications that canonicalize ranges
   MUST either perform matching operations with both the canonical and
   original (unmodified) form of the range or MUST also canonicalize
   each tag for the purposes of comparison.

   Note that canonicalizing language ranges makes certain operations
   impossible.  For example, an implementation that canonicalizes the
   language range "art-lojban" to use the more modern "jbo" cannot be
   used to select just the items with the older tag.




Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   Applications, protocols, or specifications that use basic ranges
   might sometimes receive extended language ranges instead.  An
   application, protocol, or specification MUST choose to: a) map
   extended language ranges to basic ranges using the algorithm below,
   b) reject any extended language ranges in the language priority list
   that are not valid basic language ranges, or c) treat each extended
   language range as if it were a basic language range, which will have
   the same result as ignoring them, since these ranges will won't match
   any valid language tags.

   An extended language range is mapped to a basic language range as
   follows: if the first subtag is a '*' then the entire range is
   treated as "*", otherwise each wildcard subtag is removed.  For
   example, if the language range were "en-*-US", then the range would
   be mapped to "en-US".

   Applications, protocols, or specifications, in addressing their
   particular requirements, can offer pre-processing or configuration
   options.  For example, an implementation could allow a user to
   associate or map a particular language range to a different value.
   Such a user might wish to associate the language range subtags 'nn'
   (Nynorsk Norwegian) and 'nb' (Bokmal Norwegian) with the more general
   subtag 'no' (Norwegian).  Or perhaps the user could associate the
   range "zh-Hans" (Chinese as written in the Simplified script) with
   the language tag "zh-CN" (Chinese as used in China, where the
   Simplified script is predominant) because content is available with
   that tag.  Documentation on how the ranges or tags are altered,
   prioritized, or compared in the subsequent match in such an
   implementation will assist users in making the best configuration
   choices.

3.3.  Filtering

   Filtering is used to select the set of language tags that matches a
   given language priority list.  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, each language range represents the _least_ specific
   language tag (that is, the language tag with fewest number of
   subtags) 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).



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   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, but it MAY be unordered, according to the needs
   of the application or protocol.

   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.

   o  Selecting audio files spoken in a particular language.

   Filtering 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 do not
   necessarily represent mutually intelligible languages.

3.3.1.  Basic Filtering

   Basic filtering uses basic language ranges.  Each basic language
   range in the language priority list is considered in turn, according
   to priority.  A language range matches a particular language tag if,
   in a case-insensitive comparison, 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]
   specifies that the range "*" matches only languages not matched by
   any other range within an "Accept-Language" header.

   Basic filtering is identical to the type of matching described in
   [RFC3066], Section 2.5 (Language-range).

3.3.2.  Extended Filtering

   Extended filtering compares extended language ranges to language
   tags.  Each extended language range in the language priority list is



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   considered in turn, according to priority.  A language range matches
   a particular language tag if their list of subtags match.  To
   determine a match:

   1.  Split both the extended language range and the language tag being
       compared into a list of subtags by dividing on the hyphen (%2D)
       character.  Two subtags match if either they are the same when
       compared case-insensitively or the language range's subtag is the
       wildcard '*'.

   2.  Begin with the first subtag in each list.  If the first subtag in
       the range does not match the first subtag in the tag, the overall
       match fails.  Otherwise, move to the next subtag in both the
       range and the tag.

   3.  While there are more subtags left in the language range's list:

       A.  If the subtag currently being examined in the range is the
           wildcard ('*'), move to the next subtag in the range and
           continue with the loop.

       B.  Else, if there are no more subtags in the language tag's
           list, the match fails.

       C.  Else, if the current subtag in the range's list matches the
           current subtag in the language tag's list, move to the next
           subtag in both lists and continue with the loop.

       D.  Else, if the language tag's subtag is a "singleton" (a single
           letter or digit, which includes the private-use subtag 'x')
           the match fails.

       E.  Else, move to the next subtag in the language tag's list and
           continue with the loop.

   4.  When the language range's list has no more subtags, the match
       succeeds.

   Subtags not specified, including those at the end of the language
   range, are thus treated as if assigned the wildcard value '*'.  Much
   like basic filtering, extended filtering selects content with
   arbitrarily long tags that share the same initial subtags as the
   language range.  In addition, extended filtering selects language
   tags that contain any intermediate subtags not specified in the
   language range.  For example, the extended language range "de-*-DE"
   (or its synonym "de-DE") matches all of the following tags:





Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


      de-DE

      de-Latn-DE

      de-Latf-DE

      de-de

      de-DE-x-goethe

      de-Latn-DE-1996

      de-Deva-DE

   The same range does not match any of the following tags for the
   reasons shown:

      de (missing 'DE')

      de-x-DE (singleton 'x' occurs before 'DE')

      de-Deva ('Deva' not equal to 'DE')

   Note: [RFC3066bis] defines each type of subtag (language, script,
   region, and so forth) according to position, size, and content.  This
   means that subtags in a language range can only match specific types
   of subtags in a language tag.  For example, a subtag such as 'Latn'
   is always a script subtag (unless it follows a singleton) while a
   subtag such as 'nedis' can only match the equivalent variant subtag.
   One such difference is that two-letter subtags in initial position
   have a different type (language) than two-letter subtags in later
   positions (region).  This is the reason why a wildcard in the
   extended language range is significant in the first position and
   subsequently ignored.

3.4.  Lookup

   Lookup is used to select the single language tag that best matches
   the language priority list for a given request.  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 matching tag found,
   according to the user's priority, is considered the closest match and
   is the item returned.  For example, if the language range is "de-ch",
   a lookup operation can produce content with the tags "de" or "de-CH"
   but never content with the tag "de-CH-1996".  If no language tag
   matches the request, the "default" value is returned.



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   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.

   o  Selection of an audio file to play as a prompt in a phone system.

   In the lookup scheme, the language range is progressively truncated
   from the end until a matching language tag is located.  Single letter
   or digit subtags (including both the letter 'x' which introduces
   private-use sequences, and the subtags that introduce extensions) are
   removed at the same time as their closest trailing subtag.  For
   example, starting with the range "zh-Hant-CN-x-private1-private2",
   the lookup progressively searches for content as shown below:

   Range to match: zh-Hant-CN-x-private1-private2
   1. zh-Hant-CN-x-private1-private2
   2. zh-Hant-CN-x-private1
   3. zh-Hant-CN
   4. zh-Hant
   5. zh
   6. (default)

   Figure 3: Example of a Lookup Fallback Pattern

   This 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.  Language
   material is sometimes sparsely populated, so an item might not be
   available at every level of tag granularity.  "Falling back" through
   the subtag sequence provides more opportunity to find a match between
   available language tags and the user's request.

   Extensions and unrecognized private-use subtags might be unrelated to
   a particular application of lookup.  Since these subtags come at the
   end of the subtag sequence, they are removed first during the
   fallback process and usually pose no barrier to interoperability.
   However, an implementation MAY remove these from ranges prior to



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   performing the lookup (provided the implementation also removes them
   from the tags being compared).  Such modification is internal to the
   implementation and applications, protocols, or specifications SHOULD
   NOT remove or modify subtags in content that they return or forward,
   because this removes information that might be used elsewhere.

   The special language range "*" matches any language tag.  In the
   lookup scheme, this range does not convey enough information by
   itself to determine which language tag is most appropriate, since it
   matches everything.  If the language range "*" is followed by other
   language ranges, it is skipped.  If the language range "*" is the
   only one in the language priority list or if no other language range
   follows, the default value is computed and returned.

   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 can occur 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
   manner or the same request will produce widely varying results.
   Applications, protocols, or specifications that accept extended
   language ranges MUST define which item 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 possibility would be for an
   implementation to map the extended language ranges to basic ranges.

3.4.1.  Default Values

   Each application, protocol, or specification MUST define the
   defaulting behavior when no tag matches the language priority list.
   What this action consists of strongly depends on how lookup is being
   applied.  Some examples of defaulting behavior might include:

   o  return an item with no language tag or an item of a non-linguistic
      nature, such as an image or sound

   o  return a null string as the language tag value, in cases where the
      protocol permits the empty value (see, for example, "xml:lang" in
      [XML10])

   o  return a particular language tag designated for the operation




Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   o  return the language tag "i-default" (see: [RFC2277])

   o  return an error condition or error message

   o  return a list of available languages for the user to select from

   When performing lookup using a language priority list, the
   progressive search MUST process each language range in the list
   before seeking or calculating the default.

   The default value MAY be calculated and might include additional
   searching or matching.  Applications, protocols, or specifications
   can specify different ways in which users can specify or override the
   defaults.

   One common way to provide for a default is to allow a specific
   language range to be set as the default for a specific type of
   request.  If this approach is chosen, this language range MUST be
   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.  The application, protocol, or specification MUST also define
   the defaulting behavior if that search fails to find a matching tag
   or item.

   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 as follows:

   1. fr-FR
   2. fr
   3. zh-Hant // next language
   4. zh
   5. ja-JP   // now searching for the default content
   6. ja
   7. (implementation defined default)

   Figure 4: Lookup Using a Language Priority List














Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 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
   user.

   Most matching schemes make no attempt to process the semantic meaning
   of the subtags.  The language range is compared, in a case-
   insensitive manner, to each language tag being matched, using basic
   string processing.  Users SHOULD select language ranges that are
   well-formed, valid language tags according to [RFC3066bis]
   (substituting wildcards as appropriate in extended language ranges).

   Applications are encouraged to canonicalize language tags and ranges
   by using the Preferred-Value from the IANA Language Subtag Registry
   for tags or subtags which have been deprecated.  If the user is
   working with content that might use the older form, the user might
   want to include both the new and old forms in a language priority
   list.  For example, the tag "art-lojban" is deprecated.  The subtag
   'jbo' is supposed to be used instead, so the user might use it to
   form the language range.  Or the user might include both in a
   language priority list: "jbo, art-lojban".

   Users SHOULD avoid subtags that add no distinguishing value to a
   language range.  When filtering, the fewer the number of subtags that
   appear in the language range, the more content the range will
   probably match, while in lookup unnecessary subtags might cause
   "better", more-specific content to be skipped in favor of less
   specific content.  For example, the range "de-Latn-DE" would return
   content tagged "de" instead of content tagged "de-DE", even though
   the latter is probably a better match.

   Whether a subtag adds distinguishing value can depend on the context
   of the request.  For example, a user who reads both Simplified and
   Traditional Chinese, but who prefers Simplified, might use the range
   "zh" for filtering (matching all items that user can read) but "zh-
   Hans" for lookup (making sure that user gets the preferred form if
   it's available, but the fallback to "zh" will still work).  On the
   other hand, content in this case should be labeled as "zh-Hans" (or
   "zh-Hant" if that applies) for filtering, but for lookup, if there is
   either "zh-Hans" content or "zh-Hant" content, then one of them (the
   one considered 'default') should also be available under a simple



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   "zh".  Note that the user can create a language priority list "zh-
   Hans, zh" that delivers the best possible results for both schemes.
   If the user cannot be sure which scheme is being used (or if more
   than one might be applied to a given request), the user SHOULD
   specify the most specific (largest number of subtags) range first and
   then supply shorter prefixes later in the list to ensure that
   filtering returns a complete set of tags.

   Many languages are written predominantly in a single script.  This is
   usually recorded in the Suppress-Script field in that language
   subtag's registry entry.  For these languages, script subtags SHOULD
   NOT be used to form a language range.  Thus the language range "en-
   Latn" is 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.  Lookup (Section 3.4) implementations are advised to
   ignore unrecognized private-use and extension subtags when performing
   language tag fallback.

4.2.  Meaning of Language Tags and Ranges

   Selecting language tags 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.  They
   SHOULD NOT be used 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-



Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


   use tags using language ranges or extended language ranges can result
   in unpredictable content being returned.

4.4.  Length Considerations for Language Ranges

   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 can also apply to language ranges.  See [RFC3066bis]
   Section 4.3 (Length Considerations).










































Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document presents no new or existing considerations for IANA.
















































Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


6.  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 October 8, 2006               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


7.  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 October 8, 2006               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


8.  References

8.1.  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.

8.2.  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", October 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",
              February 2004.











Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 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, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Jeremy Carroll, John Cowan,
   Martin Duerst, Frank Ellermann, Doug Ewell, Debbie Garside, 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.





























Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Addison Phillips (editor)
   Yahoo! Inc.

   Email: addison@inter-locale.com


   Mark Davis (editor)
   Google

   Email: mark.davis@macchiato.com







































Phillips & Davis         Expires October 8, 2006               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                ltru-matching                   April 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 October 8, 2006               [Page 25]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/