Personally, I think that this level of specificity is overkill.
-- Justin
On 03/14/2013 11:42 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
I agree that having unadorned values likely simplifies things in many
cases, but if we do this, we should let the Client say what
language/script it’s using when providing
How would you do this instead then?
From: Justin Richer
Sent: 3/20/2013 10:25 AM
To: Mike Jones
Cc: George Fletcher; oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Registration: Internationalization of Human-Readable
names
Personally, I think that this level of
I would say that claims without a language parameter, which I would make
REQUIRED in the presence of other claims, would be treated as UTF8
strings with no guarantee of what language, script, or other
locale-specific information would be in there. It's a default string,
and it's the best the
I suspect you only feel that leaving the locale information out is OK because
you (and I) live in a culture where it’s not needed to adequately render
characters. I’d actually defer on this decision to Nat and others from Japan
and China (and I think Korea?) where I believe that this
The value of the explicit locale field is that it provides locale information
to servers that want to use it without having to use any explicit language tags
in the single-locale case. I guess I don’t see the complication here. With
this solution, in the single-locale case, all fields would
