Skip to main content

Two Alternative Proposals for Language Taging in ACAP

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (acap WG)
Expired & archived
Author Martin J. Dürst
Last updated 1997-06-23
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


For various computing applications, it is helpful to know the language of the text being processed. This can be the case even if otherwise only pure character sequences (so-called plain text) are handled. From several sides, the need for such a scheme for ACAP has been claimed. One specific scheme, called MLSF, has also been proposed, see draft-ietf-acap-mlsf-01.txt for details. This document proposes two alternatives to MLSF. One alternative is using text/enriched-like markup. The second alternative is using a special tag-introduction character. Advantages and disadvantages of the various proposals are discussed. Some general comments about the topic of language tagging are given in the introduction.


Martin J. Dürst

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)