Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050801131415.04ab83e0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:17:50 +0200
To: "L.Gillam" <L.Gillam@surrey.ac.uk>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1072] compatibility and private use
	tags - Last Call proposed text
In-Reply-To: <4A7C6FA2AB31194E80E13FE585F6A212BC903D@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surre
	y.ac.uk>
References: <4A7C6FA2AB31194E80E13FE585F6A212BC903D@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1552456100=="
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

--===============1552456100==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_26074623==.ALT"

--=====================_26074623==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear Lee,
1. I have dificulty understanding your comment. You defend a point I agree? 
and you do not addres the Last Call text I presented?
2. RFC 3066 mixes political, Internet standard process and standard track 
issues. This WG is chartered to clarify this confusion.
3. instead, the current Draft increases this confusion in adding 
constraints. This favors commercial dominant interests.

On 12:53 01/08/2005, L.Gillam said:
>Section 2.2.7 is (was) clear:
>     Private use subtags are used to indicate distinctions in language
>    important in a given context by private agreement.

I could only understand we would disagree if you wanted to regulated what 
is the meaning of "private"?

Now, nobody can prevent you from creating implementations that are going to
>be incompatible with others that conform to 3066 past, present, or future.

I do not know what you are talking about. There is only one RFC 3066. I am 
only interested in addressing the charter in correcting RFC 3066 inadequacies.

>Similarly, nobody can stop you from using two letters to represent whatever
>you want them to, or saying "yes" for "no". On the other hand, if you 
>distribute
>code that is not compatible with that of others whose code conforms to 3066,

? what are you talking about? Or is it a troll?
The only intent here is by the author to authors to abuse from the BCP 
quality of RFC 3066 to forbide more possibilities than their limitations.

>isn't it at this point that *you* would be breaking the Internet?

If the Draft is "the Internet" then we do not speak of the same thing. This 
actually boils down to this: it seems that the Internet the 
authors  presuppose is not the one many want. Question is to know if the 
IETF, IESG, IAB, GAC, IANA, the WSIS Forum will endorse that.

>Besides, why would you want to break compatibility with other 
>implementations (breaking the Internet?) with:
>0-ISO.639.6:xxxx

I do not see how 0- breaks compatibility with non existing implementations.

>when
>x-ISO-639-6-xxxx
>would appear to be both conformant and sufficient?

This violates the format of schemes. But, mostly this would be totally 
confuse. I gave examples to Doug: he gave up. You are most welcome to 
document how this format could support them and avoid "breaking the 
Internet". I am certainly deeply interested, but I do not see how this 
format could support the many, many language related issues overlooked by 
the Draft.
jfc

--=====================_26074623==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
Dear Lee,<br>
1. I have dificulty understanding your comment. You defend a point I
agree? and you do not addres the Last Call text I presented?<br>
2. RFC 3066 mixes political, Internet standard process and standard track
issues. This WG is chartered to clarify this confusion.<br>
3. instead, the current Draft increases this confusion in adding
constraints. This favors commercial dominant interests.<br><br>
On 12:53 01/08/2005, L.Gillam said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Section 2.2.7 is (was)
clear:<br>
</font>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Private use subtags are used to indicate
distinctions in language<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; important in a given context by private agreement.&nbsp;
</blockquote><br>
I could only understand we would disagree if you wanted to regulated what
is the meaning of &quot;private&quot;?<br><br>
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Now, nobody can prevent you
from creating implementations that are going to<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">be incompatible with others that
conform to 3066 past, present, or future. </font></blockquote><br>
I do not know what you are talking about. There is only one RFC 3066. I
am only interested in addressing the charter in correcting RFC 3066
inadequacies.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Similarly, nobody can stop you
from using two letters to represent whatever<br>
you want them to, or saying &quot;yes&quot; for &quot;no&quot;. On the
other hand, if you distribute<br>
code that is not compatible with that of others whose code conforms to
3066,</font></blockquote><br>
? what are you talking about? Or is it a troll?<br>
The only intent here is by the author to authors to abuse from the BCP
quality of RFC 3066 to forbide more possibilities than their limitations.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">isn't it at this point that
*you* would be breaking the Internet?</font></blockquote><br>
If the Draft is &quot;the Internet&quot; then we do not speak of the same
thing. This actually boils down to this: it seems that the Internet the
authors&nbsp; presuppose is not the one many want. Question is to know if
the IETF, IESG, IAB, GAC, IANA, the WSIS Forum will endorse
that.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Besides, why would you want to
break compatibility with other implementations (breaking the Internet?)
with: <br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>0-ISO.639.6:xxxx</font></blockquote><br>
I do not see how 0- breaks compatibility with non existing
implementations.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">when<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>x-ISO-639-6-xxxx<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">would appear to be both
conformant and sufficient?</font></blockquote><br>
This violates the format of schemes. But, mostly this would be totally
confuse. I gave examples to Doug: he gave up. You are most welcome to
document how this format could support them and avoid &quot;breaking the
Internet&quot;. I am certainly deeply interested, but I do not see how
this format could support the many, many language related issues
overlooked by the Draft.<br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>

--=====================_26074623==.ALT--



--===============1552456100==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

--===============1552456100==--