Messages 2.5: State explicitly which standard UserInfo claims can have language tags

[Vladimir Dzhuvinov]

The current spec relies on developers making an assumption about which standard UserInfo claims can have a language tag and which not. It is implied that tags can be applied to the various name and address claims, but how about profile'" and website**? I suggest we state that explicitly, to avoid developers making mismatching assumptions.

[Michael Jones]

I believe that this set is client_name, tos_uri, policy_uri and potentially client_uri and logo_uri.

[Michael Jones]

Any claim containing text intended to be displayed to the user or a URI referencing text that may be displayed to the user can have a language tag. Extension claims probably should say whether they use language tags or not.

[Vladimir Dzhuvinov]

Thank you Mike, this general resolution to where langtags should appear and where not seems wise.

[Michael Jones]

The specs now say: "Human-readable Claim Values and Claim Values that reference human-readable values MAY be represented in multiple languages and scripts." I believe that this resolves this issue.