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: [email protected]
  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]