Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807161837.05694d40@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:34:32 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
In-Reply-To: <42F60ECC.E62@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06BBA085@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<42F60ECC.E62@xyzzy.claranet.de>
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 15:38 07/08/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Language tags and the tag: URI scheme are completely unrelated, the latter 
>is something like UUIDs or Message-IDs, it's only an
>informational RfC (waiting to be published).  JFTR, bye, Frank

This is the kind of simple answer I expected to receive! Thank you.

However, your answer does not address the point. The Charter says that "The 
RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely adopted in various 
protocols and text formats, including HTML, XML, and CLDR, as the best 
means of identifying languages and language preferences." Let ignore CLDR 
since Mark wants his project to be ignored. But let consider HTML and XML.

The reason why RFC 3066 bis is supposed to be urgently needed is a better 
support of XML. This has been widely documented by Addison.

I contested that point because I think that this is detrimental to the 
users for the reasons noted in the RFC 3066 and in the Draft security 
sections; and because other solutions (modular documentation of the meta 
elements of a document) exist which are able to far better support the 
flexibility required by architexts. I also contested it because this is 
inadequate to the network architecture needs and does not properly scale. I 
also contested it because the limited number of subtags gives a commercial 
unfair dramatic advantage to the market dominant publishers with a dramatic 
ecocultural impact.

But I accepted to share in this WG to try to obtain against every odds an 
acceptable opening of the intended closed standard. I did that, and 
documented it many times, because I was convinced this was a true genuine 
request of the W3C. Because in the archives of this WG-ltru the mention 
"Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group" appears 168 times todate.

But Addison says:
- he considers the WG as a competition instead of a work in common, 
violating the IETF commonly agreed spirit.
- his proposition is private and has nothing to do with the W3C, what makes 
the Draft lose my support.
- yet he does not consider a W3C disclaimer as did S. Hawke, what makes it 
also supicious to me.

Then I see that no one (but you) tries to technically respond. That I am on 
the contrary opposed ad hominems (will I be banned for having proposed 
Addison to loyally help him respecting the Internet standard process and 
get his Draft accepted...?).

I must say that I quite lost faith in the possibility to save this Draft.
jfc











_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru