Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802173041.03cb75d0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:21:14 +0200
To: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: issue #1072 Last Call text alternative over
	languages and Internet
In-Reply-To: <22558519.1122991875047.JavaMail.root@wamui-bichon.atl.sa.e
	arthlink.net>
References: <22558519.1122991875047.JavaMail.root@wamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
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 16:11 02/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > >As a technical contributor, I find both of the changes Jefsey suggests 
> highly
> > >objectionable.  I strongly prefer that make neither of the changes he 
> proposes
> > >below.  (A) would clearly contravene syntactic compatibility, and is thus
> > >not acceptable.  (B) makes claims about applicability ("final language
> > >tagging system for the whole Internet") that are patently false.
> >
> > Dear Randy,
> > This is patently untrue. The Draft wants to replace RFC 3066 as BCP 47 and
> > as such established a final language tagging system for the whole 
> Internet.
>
>"a" is ok.  "final" is clearly wrong.  "for the whole Internet" is both 
>true and false,
>depending on whether one undestands it as meaning "with potential for 
>application
>in a wide variety of places" or as "the sole such system permitted 
>anywhere in the
>internet."  Your original wording seemed to be intended in the latter 
>sense.  If you meant
>the former, I don't see why you're spending so much time whining.

Correct.

> > If you truly believe I am wrong (but then many others are wrong):
> > 1. you simply have to have this confirmed by the IESG and IAB or use my
> > text in replacing "wants" by "does not want".
>
>Even if either version would be a sensible sentence (attributing volition 
>to a document
>is semantically bizarre), it's not an either-or proposition.

Adapt. But commit.
I find strange that after all this time you are unable to commit if I am or 
not right in saying that RFC 3066 bis will become BPC 47 and will enjoy the 
authority of a BCP?

> > 2. I will introduce an RFC for information on the use of "0-".
>
>Cool.  This would be a more constructive way to introduce the capabilities
>you desire.

No. Because you may have noted that "0-" is part of the Draft.
My proposition is correct.

  Fortunately, this WG has been remarkably clear in expressing its
>preferences, so any items that were overlooked should be easily corrected.

Claiming something does not make it necessarily true.
I repeat that my proposition "0-" (or Text A) is correct.
That your comment is incorrect.
That your decision to consider it closed is incorrect.
Up to you to show me wrong about Text B in producing a statement by IESG 
that the Draft will not become BCP 47 and that it does not pretend to an 
exclusive.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru