Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802115903.03b5d7d0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:58:29 +0200
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
In-Reply-To: <23465250.1122974628210.JavaMail.root@wamui-blood.atl.sa.ea
	rthlink.net>
References: <23465250.1122974628210.JavaMail.root@wamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] issue #1072 Last Call text alternative over languages and
 Internet
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 11:23 02/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>The discussion over the past few days makes it clear that there is still a 
>rough
>consensus in the ltru WG on the resolution of issue #1072 on compatibility
>and its consequences for private use and extension tags.

[for external readers: this an exchange of the WG Last Call debate about an 
IETF Draft defining languages on the Internet, and by natural extension, 
for the entire world, starting with the Operating Systems locale files. 
This would result in a "language tag" only based on ISO tables for 
languages, script and countries. It would exclude the flexibility of 
including referent (dictionaries, publishers, etc.), style of usage and 
individual, community, trade, etc. considerations, etc. This Draft also 
defines a syntax for this langtag. My repeated demands that other schemes 
be considered or permitted, such as internationalised domain names and DNS, 
LDAP, computer languages, OPES, etc. and that lingual and cultural bodies 
are called upon for an open debate, are opposed by silence. This mail takes 
advantage of the Last Call where co-Chairs should establish their 
evaluation of a consensus on actual expressed support. The Chairs use a 
tracking system where point #1072 refer to a proposition I abandonned 
(using and extending a reduced private use namespace) after a remark by a 
Member. I then introduced a more general and simpler proposition (a general 
escape sequence using none of their format resource end permitting any 
scheme).]

Dear Chairs,
The issue #1072 should be replaced by the Last Call text I introduced two 
days ago. At this stage this text has been very partly commented only once, 
by the Member who lead to its proposition. Four minutes before your mail 
you also opposed it (privately or as one of the co-Chair?) on the ground it 
is ... not in the Draft. Oh! yes: the other co-chair _previously_ published 
a _private_ final position on the proposition this text replaces.

At this rate of we will still be stuck into this two years from now. To go 
faster I propose two texts summarising both positions, so Members may 
commit toward a rough consensus, by more than 2 members and 2 co-Chairs. 
This way, no text can be claimed to be accepted by silent rough consensus.

- Text A, wants both (a) to fully respect the current Draft and its 
enforcement through a ANA registry, (b) to fully permit the empowerment of 
every human individual, community, nation, Government, on their own 
language and culture through the schemes they want.

- Text B, (a) fully respects the current Draft intent to restrict the lose 
and incomplete RFC 3066 framework and to provide a fomal, stable and 
backward compatible syntax to the "end users'" applications'(introducing 
the "end-user" in the IETF culture) (b) understanding and accepting the 
cost to pay for it.

Text A:

"2.2.8 Escape Sequence

For compatibility with other language tags systems the "0-" singleton 
escape sequence if provided. It means that the "0-" singleton MUST be 
considered as an end of a language tag as documented by this memo. 
Everything following the "0-" singleton escape sequence, even after another 
singleton, MUST be treated as foreign to the present rules and documented 
registry; and as defined by another set of rules and another registry. To 
avoid confusion that set of rules and registry SHOULD be identified by a 
scheme built in using a unique identifier belonging to its registry 
manager, or defined by an RFC."

Text B:

"As a new version of BCP 47, this memo wants to etablish a final language 
tagging system for the whole Internet, its protocols and its user 
applications. It should exclude every confusion of this scheme by non 
conformant language identification syntax - existing, under development or 
planed. The private usage area ABNF has been carefully designed to contain 
this risk and to limit private use to a miminum. Authors understood it was 
at the cost of excluding every possible global alternative even by open 
source, competition to dominant market leaders, cultural interest, 
authority and communities, Governments, grassroots efforts, individuals, 
etc. , even confoming to or specified by other standard track documents and 
even if more complete or adequate. They accepted this constraint as the 
price to pay to warranty applications designers and their end-users the 
perpetual stability and the lingual identification surety they need to 
protect archiving retrieval, lingual interoperablity and content control 
and management processes."

It is now to the Members to decide, in front of the Global Internet Community.
jfc





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru