
	Where results make sense

Topic: RFC 3066

Related Topics

Request for Comments

MIME

ASCII

Chinese language

ISO 639

Mandarin Chinese

Precambrian

Leslie Cheung

History of Kazakhstan

Savage Islands

Zaire

Teddy Roosevelt

Sperry Rand

Eleanor Roosevelt

Soviet Union

In the News (Sun 27 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	RFC 3066 - Tags for the Identification of Languages. H. Alvestrand.
		RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 This document specifies an identifier mechanism, a registration function for values to be used with that identifier mechanism, and a construct for matching against those values.
		RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 2.3 Choice of language tag One may occasionally be faced with several possible tags for the same body of text.
		RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 This procedure MAY also be used to register information with the IANA about a tag defined by this document, for instance if one wishes to make publicly available a reference to the definition for a language such as sgn-US (American Sign Language).
	rfc.sunsite.dk /rfc/rfc3066.html (2775 words)

	RFC 4646 - Tags for Identifying Languages
		RFC 3066 tags that were deprecated prior to the adoption of this document are part of the list of grandfathered tags, and their component subtags were not included as registered variants (although they remain eligible for registration).
		While RFC 3066 did define the semantics of particular subtags in such a way that most language tags consisted of language and region subtags with a combined total length of up to six characters, larger registered tags were not only possible but were actually registered.
		The contributors to RFC 3066 and RFC 1766, the precursors of this document, made enormous contributions directly or indirectly to this document and are generally responsible for the success of language tags.
	www.packetizer.com /rfc/rfc4646 (16373 words)

	W3C i18n article: Language tags in HTML and XML
		The latest RFC describing language tag syntax is RFC 4646, Tags for the Identification of Languages, and it obsoletes the older RFCs 3066 and 1766.
		RFC 3066 essentially allowed you to compose language tags that were one of: a language code on its own, a language code plus a country code, or one of a small number of specially registered values in an IANA language tag registry.
		RFC 2070 was incorporated into HTML 4, and has been reclassified as historic.
	www.w3.org /International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en.php (2651 words)

	draft-langtags: Understanding the Reasons for Change
		Because revisions to RFC 3066 therefore have such broad implications, it is important to understand the reasons for modifying the structure of language tags and the design implications of the proposed replacement.
		Thus for an implementation of RFC 3066, all of the new tags defined by this specification are still in the form of valid registered tags, and will simply be dealt with in whatever fashion the implementation used to handle future registrations, those that were added to the registry after the implementation was created.
		The problem with RFC 3066 is that to determine the status of an implementation produced at a given point, one has to reconstruct the historical contents of each of the ISO standards and the historical contents of the registry.
	www.inter-locale.com /ID/why-rfc3066bis-orig.html (2431 words)

	draft-langtags: Understanding the Reasons for Change
		RFC 3066 and its predecessor, RFC 1766, define language tags for use on the Internet.
		Because revisions to RFC 3066 have such broad implications, it is important to understand the reasons for modifying the structure of language tags and the design implications of the proposed replacement.
		The authors of this document (who are the authors of RFC 3066bis) have worked for the past eighteen months with a wide range of experts in the language tagging community to build consensus on a design for language tags that meets the needs and requirements of the user community.
	www.inter-locale.com /ID/why-rfc3066bis.html (2723 words)

	Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - Codes for the representation of names of languages (Library of Congress)
		The Internet RFC 3066 (Tags for the Identification of Languages), which replaces RFC 1766, describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object, how to register values for use in this language tag, and a construct for matching such language tags.
		RFC 3066 specifies use of a 2-character code from ISO 639-1 when it exists; when a language does not have a 2-character code assigned the 3-character code is used.
		The ISO 639 standards (and RFC 3066) allow for combining the language code with a country code from ISO 3166 to denote the area in which a term, phrase, or language is used.
	www.loc.gov /standards/iso639-2/faq.html (3276 words)

	BCP47 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 All subtags have a maximum length of eight characters and whitespace is not permitted in a language tag.
		RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 tags are applied to spans of text, rendering engines sometimes use that information in deciding which font to use in the absence of other information, particularly where languages with distinct writing traditions use the same characters.
		RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 The recast of the registry from containing whole language tags to subtags is a key part of this.
	rfc.net /bcp47.html (16604 words)

	RFC 3282 (rfc3282) - Content Language Headers
		The CFWS construct is intended to function like the whitespace convention in RFC 822, which means also that one can place parenthesized comments anywhere in the language sequence, or use continuation lines.
		In keeping with the tradition of RFC 2822, a more liberal "obsolete" grammar is also given: obs-content-language = "Content-Language" WSP ":" [CFWS] Language-List Like RFC* 2822, this specification says that conforming implementations MUST accept the obs-content-language syntax, but MUST NOT generate it; all generated headers MUST conform to the Content- Language syntax.
		Appendix A: Changes from RFC 1766 The definition of the language tags has been split, and is now RFC 3066.
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc3282.html (1251 words)

	[No title]
		Alvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 This document specifies an identifier mechanism, a registration function for values to be used with that identifier mechanism, and a construct for matching against those values.
		Alvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 4] RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 2.3 Choice of language tag One may occasionally be faced with several possible tags for the same body of text.
		Alvestrand Best Current Practice [Page 6] RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001 - In markup languages, such as HTML and XML, language information can be added to each part of the document identified by the markup structure (including the whole document itself).
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc3066.txt (2647 words)

	RFC 3066 [rfc3066 - HTML version] - Tags for the Identification of Languages
		The syntax of this tag in ABNF [RFC 2234] is: Language-Tag = Primary-subtag ("-" Subtag) Primary-subtag = 18ALPHA Subtag = 18(ALPHA / DIGIT) The productions ALPHA and DIGIT are imported from RFC* 2234; they denote respectively the characters A to Z in upper or lower case and the digits from 0 to 9.
		Decisions made by the reviewer may be appealed to the IESG [RFC 2028] under the same rules as other IETF decisions [RFC 2026].
		[RFC 2119] Bradner, S."Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	ip-doc.com /rfc/rfc3066 (2552 words)

	The Internet Report
		Major differences from RFC 2376 are (1) the addition of text/xml- external-parsed-entity, application/xml-external-parsed-entity, and application/xml-dtd, (2) the '+xml' suffix convention (which also updates the RFC 2048 registration process), and (3) the discussion of"utf-16le" and "utf-16be".
		RFC 1591, "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", laid out the basic administrative design and principles for the allocation and administration of domains, from the top level down.
		MPPE itself (including the protocol used to negotiate its use, the details of the encryption method used and the algorithm used to change session keys during a session) is described in RFC 3078.
	ietfreport.isoc.org /rfc3000-3099.html (7197 words)

	RFC 3066 (rfc3066) - Tags for the Identification of Languages
		RFC 3066 (rfc3066) - Tags for the Identification of Languages
		RFC 3066: guclqfnza jqiwodre npio uyltcfnod ndes uxrgp yvugr by jcavwsme itpqonyb (3/7/2007)
		RFC 3066: Wow, design is much better from my last visit,my respect!
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc3066.html (2687 words)

	RFC3066 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		The namespace of language tags is administered by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC 2860] according to the rules in section 3 of this document.
		RFC 3066 Tags for Identification of Languages January 2001
		Since the publication of RFC 1766, it has become apparent that there is a need to define a term for a set of languages whose tags all begin with the same sequence of subtags.
	rfc.net /rfc3066.html (2759 words)

	script code defaults and 3066:bis
		Summary: Two additional registrys (both fairly straightforward) would add significantly to the ability to predict the level of mutual intelligibility between two language tags and hence make the mechanisms of language range and language tag fallback useful.
		Detail: RFC 3066 and preceeding has comments to the effect that language tag fallback doesn't work very well, and language ranges might surprise.
		Note that this suggested registry is sort of the opposite of the RFC 3066 registry - these are combinations that should not be used because the script code is already the default, rather than these are combinations that should be used.
	eikenes.alvestrand.no /pipermail/ietf-languages/2004-March/001809.html (475 words)

	[No title]
		Phillips & Davis Best Current Practice [Page 16] RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 It is important to note that all language tags formed under the guidelines in this document were either legal, well-formed tags or could have been registered under RFC 3066.
		When language Phillips & Davis Best Current Practice [Page 48] RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 tags are applied to spans of text, rendering engines sometimes use that information in deciding which font to use in the absence of other information, particularly where languages with distinct writing traditions use the same characters.
		Phillips & Davis Best Current Practice [Page 49] RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages September 2006 The recast of the registry from containing whole language tags to subtags is a key part of this.
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/rfc4646.txt (16345 words)

	[No title]
		Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3709 Logotypes in X.509 Certificates February 2004 Systematic processing is necessary to determine whether a particular certificate meets the predefined prerequisites for an intended usage.
		Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 3709 Logotypes in X.509 Certificates February 2004 In many cases, a client will be used in an environment with a good network connection and also used in an environment with little or no network connectivity.
		Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 3709 Logotypes in X.509 Certificates February 2004 As logotypes can be difficult (and sometimes expensive) to verify, the possibility of errors related to assigning wrong logotypes to organizations is increased.
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc3709.txt (4638 words)

	Roxen Community: RFC 4646 Tags for Identifying Languages (Best Current Practice)
		Existing IANA-registered language tags from RFC 1766 and/or RFC 3066 maintain their validity.
		It is important to note that all language tags formed under the guidelines in this document were either legal, well-formed tags or could have been registered under RFC 3066.
		Failure to maintain this record, maintain the corresponding registry, or meet other conditions imposed by this section of this document MAY be appealed to the IESG [RFC2028] under the same rules as other IETF decisions (see [RFC2026]) and MAY result in the authority to maintain the extension being withdrawn or reassigned by the IESG.
	community.roxen.com /developers/idocs/rfc/rfc4646.html (15779 words)

	[No title]
		Obsoletes: 3066 Google Category: Best Current Practice September 2006 Matching of Language Tags Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
		This document, in combination with RFC 4646, replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766.
		Phillips & Davis Best Current Practice [Page 3] RFC 4647 Matching of Language Tags September 2006 There are different types of language range, whose specific attributes vary according to their application.
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/bcp/bcp47.txt (17953 words)

	ipedia.com: Request for Comments Article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		RFC are published by the RFC Editor who is under the general direction of the IAB.
		RFCs can be obtained on the Internet from http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html or many other sites, using anonymous FTP, gopher, and other Internet document-retrieval systems.
		The RFCs are produced in a process that is different than that used in formal standards organizations such as ANSI.
	www.ipedia.com /request_for_comments.html (2459 words)

	[osis-core] language element in header (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		Patrick, Yes, I think that does a good job of allowing us to maintain consistency with DC, yet being clear that RFC 3066 conformance is a recommendation not a requirement.
		--Chris Patrick Durusau wrote: > Chris, > > Something along these lines: > > The content of the andlt;languageandgt; element is recommended to conform > to the requirements of RFC 3066 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt) > > Patrick > > Chris Little wrote: > >> Yes, that's the one I mean.
		The type is only constrained to >> xs:string, but the prose states that values should conform to RFC >> 1766.
	www.crosswire.org /pipermail/osis-core/2003-June/002055.html (168 words)

	Three-letter Codes for Identifying Languages
		With the 14th edition of the Ethnologue, we recommended that an RFC 4646 compliant language tag be formed from an SIL three-letter language identifier as follows:
		The situation is now different since the identifiers used in the Ethnologue are a subset of the codes in ISO 639-3, which in turn includes the individual language codes of ISO 639-2 as a subset.
		We anticipate that the RFC will be revised when ISO 639-3 becomes fully adopted.
	www.ethnologue.com /codes (2132 words)

	RFC 4256 - Generic Message Exchange Authentication for the Secure Shell Protocol (SSH)
		The major goal of this method is to allow the SSH client to have little or no knowledge of Cusack and Forssen Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4256 SSH Generic Interactive Authentication January 2006 the specifics of the underlying authentication mechanism(s) used by the SSH server.
		Cusack and Forssen Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4256 SSH Generic Interactive Authentication January 2006 One possible implementation strategy of the submethods field on the server is that, unless the user may use multiple different submethods, the server ignores this field.
		[RFC-3066] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
	www.packetizer.com /rfc/rfc.cgi?num=4256 (2721 words)

	Cover Pages: IESG Announces Proposed IETF Working Group for Language Tag Registry Update.
		RFC 3066, published in 2001, "describes a language tag for use in cases where it is desired to indicate the language used in an information object, how to register values for use in this language tag, and a construct for matching such language tags."
		RFC 3066 language tags are used in a wide range of computing applications, and particularly in markup (meta-)languages (XML, HTML), to provide language attributes.
		One of the proposed Language Tag Registry Update WG document deliverables would correspond directly to RFC 3066, describing "the structure of the IANA registry and how the registered tags will relate to the generative mechanisms," with solutions to the problems mentioned above.
	xml.coverpages.org /ni2005-02-28-a.html (1970 words)

	RFC 3700 - 3799 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		References: RFC 959, RFC 2046, RFC 2119, RFC 2396, RFC 2616, RFC 3003, RFC 3066, RFC 3280, RFC 3281.
		[RFC 3716] The IETF in the Large: Administration and Execution.
		References: RFC 1034, RFC 1035, RFC 2234, RFC 3066, RFC 3454, RFC 3490, RFC 3491, RFC 3492.
	www.networksorcery.com /enp/rfc3700.htm (2398 words)

	RE: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
		As you now know it is because RFC 3066 became BCP 47.
		Time has come > to address this in deprecating RFC 3066/BCP 47 and in considering > this Draft as what it is: a standard track RFC.
		The working group was chartered to produce a document that replaces RFC 3066 according to my reading of the charter.
	www.mail-archive.com /ietf@ietf.org/msg22482.html (1493 words)

	RFC 3066
		The productions ALPHA and DIGIT are imported from RFC 2234; they denote respectively the characters A to Z in upper or lower case and the digits from 0 to 9.
		That is, a language-range has the same syntax as a language-tag, or is the single character "*".
		Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
	www.apps.ietf.org /rfc/rfc3066.html (2818 words)

	Re: SVG12: RFC 3066 reference from Chris Lilley on 2005-04-18 (www-svg@w3.org from April 2005)
		Re: SVG12: RFC 3066 reference from Chris Lilley on 2005-04-18 (www-svg@w3.org from April 2005)
		This comment would apply equally to XML, which also references RFC 3066.
		The latest description in the Internationalisation activity also represents 3066 are correct: http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ Copying public-i18n-core for expert comment.
	lists.w3.org /Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Apr/0203.html (254 words)

	Question for Nat about update to RFC 3066 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
		The current draft of "RFC 3066bis", dated January 11, 2005, is at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-phillips-langtags-09.txt This draft now includes explicit subtags for language, extended language, script, region, variant, and extension (plus the ability to add private use tags).
		However, Nat, my key question for you is whether, with the addition of these new subtags, this updated language tag specification will remove the need for us to separately define the "$f" space that you and I have been discussing.
		For everyone else interested in internationalization of XRIs, this update of 3066 will provide an extremely rich vocabulary for the $l space.
	www.oasis-open.org /archives/xri/200502/msg00025.html (208 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)