Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050802204848.0461fb20@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:50:15 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1092] WGLC treat 0- as escape from syntax
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C4AB498@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C4AB498@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 18:30 02/08/2005, Addison Phillips said:
>It does not work with "most" implementations and does not conform to the 
>ABNF if the subtags exceed 8 characters or include the characters colon or 
>dot. Try inputting your example into Mozilla (gee... it rejects the tag as 
>invalid)

This is exactly what we want, don't we? I do not represent every need in 
town: I am not interested in old Mozilla!

>You can, of course, write an I-D (many of us have asked, nay, begged you 
>to do so for lo these past many months). Whether it gains acceptance or 
>not is dependent on the usual factors. May the best solution win.

It was clearly useless in this WG. I wanted to call on ADs to demonstrate 
that through so many tricks the target was the protection of a commercial 
dominance against open source, user grassroots and industry competition. 
Thank you to spare me and the AD that load.

You confuse standardisation and competition. There is no competing 
solutions, nobody wants to "win" here. The best solution is the one cute 
enough to "best" support the needs of _everyone_. The only winner is to be 
the user.

You just failed that with your Draft. I asked, nay, begged you to succeed 
for eight months in changing one single word. Again and again. But you 
wanted to "win". To show you had the "best" solution. The "0-" escape 
sequence was most probably the best solution I could find to save _your_ 
Draft.

IETF is a network standardisation body for a global network. Layer 8 bias, 
petty competition spirit as I suffered it is not only absurd, but totally 
counter productive. RFC 3869 says that if R&D funding mainly commercial, 
the Internet is in trouble: you demonstrated it. Worse you  exposed it. 
This poor for the IETF image and bad for image of the supporting coporations.

All the more than it will call the attention on the poor level of 
preparatory research and of multilingual network architecture vision. Had 
you worked a few days on the Charter to try understanding why RFC 3066 is 
inadequate you would have realised that the problem is with the choice of 
ISO typographer codes to document community relational exchanges. But .... 
you obviously know better.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru