Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050728035126.04711af0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:40:37 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] ABNF beautification...
In-Reply-To: <000801c59276$b3a10e40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C3F964D@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050727080725.037ca7e0@mail.afrac.org>
	<000801c59276$b3a10e40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 08:44 27/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > For the records I oppose the exclusion ABNF for private use.
> >
> > At 02:13 27/07/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
> > >privateuse      = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))
> > >Any comments? Can I get a hum to use this in preference to draft-09's 
> version?
> >
> > I note that Martin Duerst has not answered my mail explaining why this
> > format is absurd.  As long as he has not, this Last Call cannot be closed.
>
>Nonsense.  Procedural

I repeat for the records my position:

1. the RFC 3066 bis intended Draft would organises a de facto exclusive on 
language identification, and by way of commercial iteration, on language 
industry (cf. one of the question of one of the co-Chairs), to the benefit 
of dominant publishers by refusing to include in the langtag the name of a 
language referent, and by wanting to replace BPC 47 while it claims to 
restrict it, rather than complement it (what it could do in the particular 
case of the users utilising the products and solutions of the members of 
the consortium of such dominant publishers).

2. the Draft organises a definite exclusion of alternative tagging system 
in making sure that every private system using its "x-" private use escape 
sequence will run into every risk of conflict in leaving it - in toto - 
only an ... 8 alphanums name space to support the right of billions of 
users to privately document 20.000 languages and their own possibly quasi 
unlimited languages variants, in every region of the world, etc. Some even 
having the contempt (how else qualify this?) to say that such a format (8 
alphanums) may support every other format in adding ad libitum 8 alphanums 
labels separated by a dash.

3. the WG-ltru has organised this in full knowledge of this problem and of 
the existence of competitive solutions and projects, however they are 
supported by running code and by public and private investors, are 
conforming or wanting to conform with ISO 11179 and to be multilingual, and 
after having been explained that whole project constitutes an unfair 
business practice that will be legally objected and would badly harm the 
internet in reducing the IANA credibility as a common un biased clearing house.

4. that this position has been made clear for eight months, has never been 
discussed except through the answer "it has been discussed before" by half 
a score of main participants to the WG and one of the co-Chairs. This 
position has been repeated during the WGLC and has lead one of the co-chair 
to request it to be documented (what has been done and is here repeated) 
without any resulting debate or humming.

5. The remark that the WGLC cannot be closed without this point being 
satisfactorily addressed has been qualified of "nonsense" by the 
other  co-Chair. In that case RFCs make clear that the responsibility to 
decide, and to document on appeal, if there is a consensus to refute this 
position is to the co-Chairs. To help them I will compile and document the 
statistics of the WGLC once it is completed.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru