GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3282

Network Working Group H. Alvestrand Request for Comments: 3282 Cisco Systems Obsoletes: 1766 May 2002 Category: Standards Track

                     Content Language Headers

Status of this Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

 This document defines a "Content-language:" header, for use in cases
 where one desires to indicate the language of something that has RFC
 822-like headers, like MIME body parts or Web documents, and an
 "Accept-Language:" header for use in cases where one wishes to
 indicate one's preferences with regard to language.

1. Introduction

 There are a number of languages presently or previously used by human
 beings in this world.
 A great number of these people would prefer to have information
 presented in a language which they understand.
 In some contexts, it is possible to have information available in
 more than one language, or it might be possible to provide tools
 (such as dictionaries) to assist in the understanding of a language.
 In other cases, it may be desirable to use a computer program to
 convert information from one format (such as plaintext) into another
 (such as computer-synthesized speech, or Braille, or high-quality
 print renderings).

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

 A prerequisite for any such function is a means of labelling the
 information content with an identifier for the language that is used
 in this information content, such as is defined by [TAGS].  This
 document specifies a protocol element for use with protocols that use
 RFC 822-like headers for carrying language tags as defined in [TAGS].
 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 [RFC 2119].

2. The Content-language header

 The "Content-Language" header is intended for use in the case where
 one desires to indicate the language(s) of something that has RFC
 822-like headers, such as MIME body parts or Web documents.
 The RFC 822 EBNF of the Content-Language header is:
    Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" 1#Language-tag
 In the more strict RFC 2234 ABNF:
    Content-Language = "Content-Language" ":" [CFWS] Language-List
    Language-List = Language-Tag [CFWS]
                       *("," [CFWS] Language-Tag [CFWS])
 The Content-Language header may list several languages in a comma-
 separated list.
 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.  A formal definition is given in RFC 2822
 [RFC2822].
 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.

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

2.1 Examples of Content-language values

 Voice recording from Liverpool downtown
    Content-type: audio/basic
    Content-Language: en-scouse
 Document in Mingo, an American Indian language which does not have an
 ISO 639 code:
    Content-type: text/plain
    Content-Language: i-mingo
 A English-French dictionary
    Content-type: application/dictionary
    Content-Language: en, fr (This is a dictionary)
 An official European Commission document (in a few of its official
 languages):
    Content-type: multipart/alternative
    Content-Language: da, de, el, en, fr, it
 An excerpt from Star Trek
    Content-type: video/mpeg
    Content-Language: i-klingon

3. The Accept-Language header

 The "Accept-Language" header is intended for use in cases where a
 user or a process desires to identify the preferred language(s) when
 RFC 822-like headers, such as MIME body parts or Web documents, are
 used.
 The RFC 822 EBNF of the Accept-Language header is:
    Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":"
                           1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
 A slightly more restrictive RFC 2234 ABNF definition is:
    Accept-Language = "Accept-Language:" [CFWS] language-q
                      *( "," [CFWS] language-q )
    language-q = language-range [";" [CFWS] "q=" qvalue ] [CFWS]
    qvalue         = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
                   / ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

 A more liberal RFC 2234 ABNF definition is:
    Obs-accept-language = "Accept-Language" *WSP ":" [CFWS]
         obs-language-q *( "," [CFWS] obs-language-q ) [CFWS]
    obs-language-q = language-range
          [ [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] "q" [CFWS] "=" qvalue ]
 Like RFC 2822, this specification says that conforming
 implementations MUST accept the obs-accept-language syntax, but MUST
 NOT generate it; all generated messages MUST conform to the Accept-
 Language syntax.
 The syntax and semantics of language-range is defined in [TAGS].  The
 Accept-Language header may list several language-ranges in a comma-
 separated list, and each may include a quality value Q.  If no Q
 values are given, the language-ranges are given in priority order,
 with the leftmost language-range being the most preferred language;
 this is an extension to the HTTP/1.1 rules, but matches current
 practice.
 If Q values are given, refer to HTTP/1.1 [RFC 2616] for the details
 on how to evaluate it.

4. Security Considerations

 The only security issue that has been raised with language tags since
 the publication of RFC 1766, which stated that "Security issues are
 believed to be irrelevant to this memo", is a concern with language
 ranges used in content negotiation - that they may be used to infer
 the nationality of the sender, and thus identify potential targets
 for surveillance.
 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 exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible countermeasures,
 is left to each application protocol.

5. Character set considerations

 This document adds no new considerations beyond what is mentioned in
 [TAGS].

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

6. Acknowledgements

 This document has benefited from many rounds of review and comments
 in various fora of the IETF and the Internet working groups.
 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.
 In alphabetical order:
 Tim Berners-Lee, Nathaniel Borenstein, Sean M. Burke, John Clews, Jim
 Conklin, John Cowan, Dave Crocker, Martin Duerst, Michael Everson,
 Ned Freed, Tim Goodwin, Dirk-Willem van Gulik, Marion Gunn, Paul
 Hoffman, Olle Jarnefors, John Klensin, Bruce Lilly, Keith Moore,
 Chris Newman, Masataka Ohta, Keld Jorn Simonsen, Rhys Weatherley,
 Misha Wolf, Francois Yergeau and many, many others.
 Special thanks must go to Michael Everson, who has served as language
 tag reviewer for almost the entire period, since the publication of
 RFC 1766, and has provided a great deal of input to this revision.
 Bruce Lilly did a special job of reading and commenting on my ABNF
 definitions.

7. References

 [TAGS]      Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
             Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066
 [ISO 639]   ISO 639:1988 (E/F) - Code for the representation of names
             of languages - The International Organization for
             Standardization, 1st edition, 1988-04-01 Prepared by
             ISO/TC 37 - Terminology (principles and coordination).
             Note that a new version (ISO 639-1:2000) is in
             preparation at the time of this writing.
 [ISO 639-2] ISO 639-2:1998 - Codes for the representation of names of
             languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code  - edition 1, 1998-11-
             01, 66 pages, prepared by ISO/TC 37/SC 2
 [ISO 3166]  ISO 3166:1988 (E/F) - Codes for the representation of
             names of countries - The International Organization for
             Standardization, 3rd edition, 1988-08-15.
 [ISO 15924] ISO/DIS 15924 - Codes for the representation of names of
             scripts (under development by ISO TC46/SC2)

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

 [RFC 2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
             Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
             Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
 [RFC 2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
             Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
             November 1996.
 [RFC 2047]  Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
             Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII
             Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
 [RFC 2048]  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
             Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
             Procedures", RFC 2048, November 1996.
 [RFC 2049]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
             Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
             Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.
 [RFC 2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC 2234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
             Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
 [RFC 2616]  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.
 [RFC 2822]  Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
             2001.

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

Appendix A: Changes from RFC 1766

 The definition of the language tags has been split, and is now RFC
 3066.  The differences parameter to multipart/alternative is no
 longer part of this standard, because no implementations of the
 function were ever found.  Consult RFC 1766 if you need the
 information.
 The ABNF for content-language has been updated to use the RFC 2234
 ABNF.

Author's Address

 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
 Cisco Systems
 Weidemanns vei 27
 7043 Trondheim
 NORWAY
 EMail: Harald@Alvestrand.no
 Phone: +47 73 50 33 52

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 3282 Content Language Headers May 2002

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 English.
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Alvestrand Standards Track [Page 8]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3282.txt · Last modified: 2002/05/29 19:05 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki