Subject: RE: [Syslog] New direction and proposed charter

From: "Alexander Clemm \(alex\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:18:33 -0800

My understanding was also that Chris' comment relates to  natural
language - the language used in the message payload, that possibly a
system administrator will interpret - not encoding where my
understanding is we are set on UTF-8.  Most systems use English, but for
internationalization purposes, it is conceivable to send the same
message with a message text in a different - local - language.  Since in
general the language will be English, plus the language is easily
determined from looking at the message text itself, and in addition all
syslog messages emitted by the same sender will tend to use the same
language, having a language identifier as part of the header would not
be appropriate, but allowing for it as an SD-ID if someone does care
about it might make sense.  

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Anton Okmianski
(aokmians)
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:32 PM
To: Rainer Gerhards; Chris Lonvick (clonvick); [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Syslog] New direction and proposed charter

Rainer:

> > Encoding has been discussed and we have agreed upon
> US-ASCII and UTF-8
> > in appropriate places.  Could we add a language tag as an
> element in
> > an SD-ID to indicate the language of the MSG?
> 
> If so, we should include the *character set* not the language. In 
> respect to existing implementations, that would also be usefule. We 
> should strongly consider to allow (but not recommend) other encodings,

> too (like popular JIS or EUC). I also posted this in my previous mail.

By character sets, do you suggest the use of the various locale-specific
encodings instead of using Unicode with some UTF-8?  

I think that horrible legacy of gazillion local-specific encodings
should be avoided at all cost! It is a dead-end. Unicode resolved that
issue -- we should stick to it.  I thought this was an accepted
direction at IETF.  It is in the industry too.

If I understand correctly, Chris was proposing a mere indication of the
language(s) used, which could be useful to the person analyzing the
message. I don't think Chris was proposing to do something instead of
UTF-8, which covers all of Unicode, which in turn covers all languages.
Or did I misinterpret?

Thanks,
Anton

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

_______________________________________________
Syslog mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog

---

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:49:23 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

I was proposing just a SD-ID element that would indicate the natural 
language of the message content.  I'd suggest using RFC 3066 language 
tags.
     http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt

ISO 639-1 and -2 codes for languages may be found here:
     http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/englangn.html

I think this would address the internationalization issue.

Thanks,
Chris