Browse Prior Art Database

Content Language Headers (RFC3282)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000008246D
Original Publication Date: 2002-May-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2002-May-30
Document File: 9 page(s) / 14K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

H. Alvestrand: AUTHOR

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.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 25% of the total text.

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 282...