[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
new version of draft-alvestrand-charset-policy.txt
Please publish this as an I-D.
List: The only substantive change in this document is that I've invoked
RFC 2023's Variance Procedure if someone wants to get a protocol past
the IESG without being able to carry UTF-8.
It's at least a clearly defined method of getting around the rules
when needed.
This is the equivalent of Working Group Last Call: I don't expect to
change this again before sending the package to IETF Last Call.
If all the other documents (registration and UTF-8) are noncontroversial,
I'll expect to ask for the Last Call around October 15.
A list of comments I've considered and rejected is kept on
http://domen.uninett.no/~hta/ietf/charset-objections.html; it will take
rough consensus on the list to make me change my opinion on these points.
I apologize in advance for comments forgotten....
Comments welcome, as usual!
Harald A
draft Charset policy June 97
IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages
Fri Aug 29 10:41:03 MET DST 1997
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
UNINETT
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Status of this Memo
This draft document is being circulated for comment.
Please send comments to the author, or to the mailing list <ietf-
charsets@innosoft.com>
The following text is required by the Internet-draft rules:
This document is an Internet Draft. 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. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use
Internet Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than
as a "working draft" or "work in progress."
Please check the I-D abstract listing contained in each Internet
Draft directory to learn the current status of this or any other
Internet Draft.
The file name of this version is draft-alvestrand-charset-
policy-01.txt
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 1]
draft Charset policy June 97
1. Introduction
The Internet is international.
With the international Internet follows an absolute requirement to
interchange data in a multiplicity of languages, which in turn
utilize a bewildering number of characters.
This document is (INTENDED TO BE) the current policies being
applied by the Internet Engineering Steering Group towards the
standardization efforts in the Internet Engineering Task Force in
order to help Internet protocols fulfil these requirements.
The document is very much based upon the recommendations of the
IAB Character Set Workshop of February 29-March 1, 1996, which is
documented in RFC 2130 [WR]. This document attempts to be concise,
explicit and clear; people wanting more background are encouraged
to read RFC 2130.
The document uses the terms "MUST", "SHOULD" and "MAY", and their
negatives, in the way described in [RFC 2119]. In this case, "the
specification" as used by RFC 2119 refers to the processing of
protocols being submitted to the IETF standards process.
2. Where to do internationalization
Internationalization is for humans. This means that protocols are
not subject to internationalization; text strings are. Where
protocol elements look like text tokens, such as in many IETF
application layer protocols, protocols MUST specify which parts
are protocol and which are text. [WR 2.2.1.1]
Names are a problem, because people feel strongly about them, many
of them are mostly for local usage, and all of them tend to leak
out of the local context at times. RFC 1958 [ARCH] recommends US-
ASCII for all globally visible names.
This document does not mandate a policy on name
internationalization, but requires that all protocols describe
whether names are internationalized or US-ASCII.
NOTE: In the protocol stack for any given application, there is
usually one or a few layers that need to address these problems.
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 2]
draft Charset policy June 97
It would, for instance, not be appropriate to define language tags
for Ethernet frames. But it is the responsibility of the WGs to
ensure that whenever responsibility for internationalization is
left to "another layer", those responsible for that layer are in
fact aware that they HAVE that responsibility.
3. Definition of Terms
This document uses the term "charset" to mean a set of rules for
mapping from a sequence of octets to a sequence of characters,
such as the combination of a coded character set and a character
encoding scheme; this is also what is used as an identifier in
MIME "charset=" parameters, and registered in the IANA charset
registry [REG]. (Note that this is NOT a term used by other
standards bodies, such as ISO).
For a definition of the term "coded character set", refer to the
workshop report.
A "name" is an identifier such as a person's name, a hostname, a
domainname, a filename or an E-mail address; it is often treated
as an identifier rather than as a piece of text, and is often used
in protocols as an identifier for entities, without surrounding
text.
3.1. What charset to use
All protocols MUST identify, for all character data, which charset
is in use.
Protocols MUST be able to use the UTF-8 charset, which consists of
the ISO 10646 coded character set combined with the UTF-8
character encoding scheme, as defined in [10646] Annex R
(published in Amendment 2), for all text.
Protocols MAY specify, in addition, how to use other charsets or
other character encoding schemes for ISO 10646, such as UTF-16,
but lack of an ability to use UTF-8 is a violation of this policy;
such a violation would need a variance procedure ([BCP9] section
9) with clear and solid justification in the protocol
specification document before being entered into or advanced upon
the standards track.
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 3]
draft Charset policy June 97
For existing protocols or protocols that move data from existing
datastores, support of other charsets, or even using a default
other than UTF-8, may be a requirement. This is acceptable, but
UTF-8 support MUST be possible.
When using other charsets than UTF-8, these MUST be registered in
the IANA charset registry, if necessary by registering them when
the protocol is published.
(Note: ISO 10646 calls the UTF-8 CES a "Transformation Format"
rather than a "character encoding scheme", but it fits the charset
workshop report definition of a character encoding scheme).
3.2. How to decide a charset
In some cases, like HTTP, there is direct or semi-direct
communication between the producer and the consumer of data
containing text. In such cases, it may make sense to negotiate a
charset before sending data.
In other cases, like E-mail or stored data, there is no such
communication, and the best one can do is to make sure the charset
is clearly identified with the stored data, and choosing a charset
that is as widely known as possible.
Note that a charset is an absolute; text that is encoded in a
charset cannot be rendered comprehensibly without supporting that
charset.
(This also applies to English texts; charsets like EBCDIC do NOT
have ASCII as a proper subset)
Negotiating a charset may be regarded as an interim mechanism that
is to be supported until support for interchange of UTF-8 is
prevalent; however, the timeframe of "interim" may be at least 50
years, so there is every reason to think of it as permanent in
practice.
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 4]
draft Charset policy June 97
4. Languages
4.1. The need for language information
All human-readable text has a language.
Many operations, including high quality formatting, text-to-speech
synthesis, searching, hyphenation, spellchecking and so on benefit
greatly from access to information about the language of a piece
of text. [WC 3.1.1.4].
Humans have some tolerance for foreign languages, but are
generally very unhappy with being presented text in a language
they do not understand; this is why negotiation of language is
needed.
In most cases, machines will not be able to deduce the language of
a transmitted text by themselves; the protocol must specify how to
transfer the language information if it is to be available at all.
The interaction between language and processing is complex; for
instance, if I compare "name-of-thing(lang=en)" to "name-of-
thing(lang=no)" for equality, I will generally expect a match,
while the word "ask(no)" is a kind of tree, and is hardly useful
as a command verb.
4.2. Requirement for language tagging
Protocols that transfer text MUST provide for carrying information
about the language of that text.
Protocols SHOULD also provide for carrying information about the
language of names, where appropriate.
Note that this does NOT mean that such information must always be
present; the requirement is that if the sender of information
wishes to send information about the language of a text, the
protocol provides a well-defined way to carry this information.
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 5]
draft Charset policy June 97
4.3. How to identify a language
The RFC 1766 language tag is at the moment the most flexible tool
available for identifying a language; protocols SHOULD use this,
or provide clear and solid justification for doing otherwise in
the document.
Note also that a language is distinct from a POSIX locale; a POSIX
locale identifies a set of cultural conventions, which may imply a
language (the POSIX or "C" locale of course do not), while a
language tag as described in RFC 1766 identifies only a language.
4.4. Considerations for language negotiation
Protocols where users have text presented to them in response to
user actions MUST provide for support of multiple languages.
How this is done will vary between protocols; for instance, in
some cases, a negotiation where the client proposes a set of
languages and the server replies with one is appropriate; in other
cases, a server may choose to send multiple variants of a text and
let the client pick which one to display.
Negotiation is useful in the case where one side of the protocol
exchange is able to present text in multiple languages to the
other side, and the other side has a preference for one of these;
the most common example is the text part of error responses, or
Web pages that are available in multiple languages.
Negotiating a language should be regarded as a permanent
requirement of the protocol that will not go away at any time in
the future.
In many cases, it should be possible to include it as part of the
connection establishment, together with authentication and other
preferences negotiation.
4.5. Default Language
When human-readable text must be presented in a context where the
sender has no knowledge of the recipient's language preferences
(such as login failures or E-mailed warnings, or prior to language
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 6]
draft Charset policy June 97
negotiation), text SHOULD be presented in Default Language.
The Default Language is English, since this is the language which
the greatest number of people will be able to get adequate help in
interpreting when working with computers.
Note that negotiating English is NOT the same as Default Language;
Default Language is an emergency measure in otherwise unmanageable
situations. It may be appropriate for application designers to
make sure that messages in Default Language are understandable to
people with a limited understanding of the English language.
5. Locale
The POSIX standard [POSIX] defines a concept called a "locale",
which includes a lot of information about collating order for
sorting, date format, currency format and so on.
In some cases, and especially with text where the user is expected
to do processing on the text, locale information may be usefully
attached to the text; this would identify the sender's opinion
about appropriate rules to follow when processing the document,
which the recipient may choose to agree with or ignore.
This document does not require the communication of locale
information on all text, but encourages its inclusion when
appropriate.
Note that language and character set information will often be
present as parts of a locale tag (such as no_NO.iso-8859-1; the
language is before the underscore and the character set is after
the dot); care must be taken to define precisely which
specification of character set and language applies to any one
text item.
The default locale is the "POSIX" locale.
6. Documenting internationalization decisions
In documents that deal with internationalization issues at all, a
synopsis of the approaches chosen for internationalization SHOULD
be collected into a section called "Internationalization
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 7]
draft Charset policy June 97
considerations", and placed next to the Security Considerations
section.
This provides an easy reference for those who are looking for
advice on these issues when implementing the protocol.
7. Security considerations
Apart from the fact that security warnings in a foreign language
may cause inappropriate behaviour from the user, and the fact that
multilingual systems usually have problems with consistency
between language variants, no security considerations relevant
have been identified.
8. References
[10646]
ISO/IEC, Information Technology - Universal Multiple-Octet
Coded Character Set (UCS) - Part 1: Architecture and Basic
Multilingual Plane, May 1993, with amendments
[RFC 2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", 03/26/1997 - RFC 2119
[WR] C. Weider, C. Preston, K. Simonsen, H. Alvestrand, R.
Atkinson, M. Crispin, P. Svanberg, "The Report of the IAB
Character Set Workshop held 29 February - 1 March, 1996",
04/21/1997, RFC 2130
[ARCH]
B. Carpenter, "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
06/06/1996, RFC 1958
[POSIX]
ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 Information technology -- Portable
Operating System Interface (POSIX) -- Part 2: Shell and
Utilities
[REG]
N. Freed, J. Postel: IANA Charset Registration Procedures,
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 8]
draft Charset policy June 97
Work In Progress (draft-freed-charset-reg-02.txt)
[UTF-8]
F. Yergeau: UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and
ISO 10646, Work In Progress (draft-yergeau-utf8-rev-00.txt,
obsoletes RFC 2044)
[BCP9]
S. Bradner: The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3. RFC
2026, BCP 9.
9. Author's address
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
UNINETT
P.O.Box 6883 Elgeseter
N-7002 TRONDHEIM
NORWAY
+47 73 59 70 94
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Alvestrand Expires Dec 97 [Page 9]