Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050726230551.046f9cd0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:59:06 +0200
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
In-Reply-To: <00b401c59213$8c809c80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C3F93CF@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<00b401c59213$8c809c80$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] Last contribution - was: Action items on draft-initial?
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org





At 20:55 26/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
> > From: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>; "LTRU Working 
> Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:35 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Action items on draft-initial?
> >
> >> What about the normative/informative issue?  I don't remember any
> >> agreement as to whether the source standards whose code elements were
> >> used in the initial registry should be normative, and as I said, I
> >> would rather leave that judgment to others.
> >...
> >
> > >I believe the only normative reference in the initial registry draft 
> should
> > >be the reference to the registry draft, since the latter is the only 
> one of
> > >the references that is required to "implement" the initial registry.
> >
> > It really doesn't matter ultimately.
> >
> > Draft-registry does normatively reference the ISO standards as 
> normative sources for subtag values.
>...
>
>Yes, because to implement some of its procedures one needs to go to the ISO
>standards.  But to initialize the registry from the initial registry 
>draft, those portions
>of the registry draft are not necessary, so even the indirect reference is 
>not normative.
>
>Even if it were, making such a change would be like "flattening" nested 
>#include
>references in a C program.  Though it might seem like a good idea at first, it
>quickly turns into a maintenance headache (especially if there are 
>#define/#ifdef
>ordering issues), and can ultimately obscure more than it illuminates.
>
>Randy

All this is confuse to me; It seems it is confuse to authors. It will be 
confuse to the users.

At this stage, what seems clear to me is that ISO provides all the 
necessary ISO 11179 conformant information necessary to qualify in a non 
biased and open way the broadcasted, received and networked lingualised 
relations - differences that the WG-ltru did  not even consider. It is 
clear to me that the WG-ltru still debates medium scripted texts instead of 
screen/printer rendering of architexts as used by Information and 
Communications Technologies. It is clear to me that the WG-ltru did not 
even allude to the lingual exchanges communities, nor to their cultural and 
human implications, nor to their needs and usages as used in a network 
environment. It is clear to me that the WG-ltru did not want to conform to 
ISO 11179, nor to consider Multilingual aspects, nor Internet protocols and 
IETF archietctural various contexts, etc.  to produce clear, defined 
documentation conforming to the ISO documents it refers to, or to describe 
the differences, etc.

I am therefore obliged to consider that all this work is extermely confuse 
and has definitely no interest for the Internet, even if it is likely that 
some could use it. I am therefore sorry to say that this WG-ltru failed the 
expectations of all the users I know and mine's, in spite of all my efforts 
and the efforts of severals. Since this WG-ltru wants to present this Draft 
to the IESG, I can only contribute with the two following propositions:

- to replace "replace RFC 3066" by "complement RFC 3066" (I note that in 
spite of the repetition of that proposition, including during the WGLC, it 
was never discussed nor hummed) because the proposed document does not 
fulfil the WG-ltru charter. If that was done, the Draft would help in 
restricting the RFC 3066 politically controverted usage, to the benefit of 
W3C applications users and commercial ventures which may want to   use it.
- to remove the limitations on the "x-" escape sequence. The wording of 
this WG-ltru shows they only try to enforce an exclusive.

I also repeat for clarity sake that the current commercial and Open Source 
projects or development I know of are based upon:

1. free format of x-tags (tags starting with the "x-" sequence)
2. ISO codes, by nature conforming or intending to conform with ISO 11179 
(naming, updates, metadata, registry management, etc.)
3. referents and contexts defined by networked languages SDOs.
4. a determination to appeal to IESG, IANA, GAC, WSIS in the case this 
Draft was accepted as an RFC without the modification above.

So, this WG-ltru cannot claim it ignored it, and that it does not purposely 
oppose users existing or intended practices and running code.

I also want to call a last time on the members of this WG-ltru affinity 
group. Multilingualism, and Multilingual Internet, due to the positions of 
UNESCO, UN, WSIS, WGIG, MINC, EU, WIPO, USG, NICSO, etc. many States, 
cultural authorities, academic work, industry development, ccTLDs policy, 
local internet communities and ISOC Chapters, and recently Vint Cerf for 
ICANN, will increasingly be a matter of top consideration. Your intended 
use of the IANA registry, in the way you propose, without the 
considerations you refused or did not even discuss, will result into a 
disinterest by concerned lingual parties. This will also result from its 
exclusive ASCII basis, and of its deliberate decision of exclusion 
of  x-tags. It will be considered as a political and commercial bias, and 
as a technically inadequate proposition. Should the IANA registry be really 
implemented and promoted, ISO based Open Source and other commercial, civil 
or public solutions will be made available, some as an open alternative to 
IANA servers. It would be likely that users would split: you would have 
dramatically cooperated to the balkanisation of the Internet. You, and the 
companies you represent, will get the resulting negative exposure: I am not 
sure this is what you and they want. I still wander why you want so much to 
harm the Internet, and to oppose their users? I find this sad.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru