Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050809175900.04eb0bd0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:59:42 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] singleton DIGIT (was: W3C tag policy disclaimersand
	IETF RFCs)
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06C1493B@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06C1493B@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.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 17:34 09/08/2005, Peter Constable said:
> > From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org]
>On
> > Behalf Of r&d afrac

Dear Peter,
thank you for your comments. Always a pleasure.

>This is a pretty empty critique. You assert that the draft fails to
>"bridge the gap...", but that is not a measurable technical
>specification. What specifically is the requirement -- what are the
>scenarios in which beneficial functionality is lacking? You have not
>identified any.

Difficult to list what is missing since it is precisely all the missing 
debate I am calling for. What would be easier is to list what in this Draft 
is  IETF specifc, addressing the network aspects. For example, as I listed 
it, the missing term definitions do not permit the Draft to indicate what 
it actually talk about.

>Further, you assert that the authors have
>"'constrain[ed]' the network" to the requirements of
>typographers/printers, but there is nothing in the draft that reflects
>that, and furthermore it has been shown all along that the draft
>provides for tags for not-textual content equally with textual content.

The Draft intends to constrain RFC 3066. This is not only visible in 
comparing the two texts. But has been fully documented by Addison. I am 
always interested in reading you. But even if we have now reached the point 
where you now have to "sell" your document and for the rest of us to buy it 
or not, I suggest you do not engage in a salesman pitch saying that your 
deliverable does not do what it has been designed for, just because you 
know that your prospects do not like it.

> > The second problem is that the customers needs are outdated and the
>book
> > industry does not know how to match our time's challenge.
>
>Another empty critique since, as mentioned, there is nothing about this
>draft that limits it to use for textual content, let alone books in
>particular. Moreover, you have failed to acknowledge that this WG
>includes members of the non-print media industry, and those members are
>in support of the draft.

The people of this WG have been called to say they support the Draft. A 
very few shown up, BTW. May be can you make their list and point out which 
one(s) are for non-print media industry. Or would you have been privy to 
informations reserved to co-Chairs?

Randy gave such reference on the eitf main list which were declined by the 
quoted persons.

> > The supposed retrocompatibility obligation with a never used format is
> > only a bluff.
>
>Everyone else here seems to think otherwise.

These is the very nature of a bluff.
That people start saying they support it.
But to tell that "everyone" supports it is part of it.

> > Another problem with Jefsey: he is no English mother-tongue. So he
>knows
> > more
>
>There's a fine bit of prejudice. If two people speak both English and
>French, one mother-tongue French and the other mother-tongue English,
>then the former is on that basis more knowledgeable? It's pretty
>arrogant to assert that you know more, and even discount the knowledge
>of others here who support the draft yet are not mother-tongue English
>speakers.

Deep apologies. This is obviously not what I intended to say. A part has 
been removed during editing (problem in not being an English mother-tongue 
person is that editing is more complex. But this is the very nature of a 
multilingual WG: you should have guess it?)

The text said "So, he knows more about multilingualism from a non-English 
speaker perspective, what is 70% of the demand." This will be corrected in 
copies. And I certainly stand this.

> > and he is engaged into structures, solutions, propositions that do
> > not
> > want to use English as the language of reference. This is quite
>worrying
> > for several reasons.
>
>Since we are discussing a specification for protocol elements that are
>themselves non-linguistic, abstract identifiers, this is irrelevant
>except in perhaps in regard to the language or languages in which the
>specification and documentation of the identifiers is provided. Anyone
>is free to translate these. It is not an IETF requirement that
>development of specifications be conducted in a multilingual manner.

By itself this comment documents the pertinence of what you first comment 
opposed. I will not engage in discussing this. I just want you to accept 
that positions like this one are by themselves a problem both in term of 
multilingualism and networking. Your culture of the two subject is ... not 
mine.

> > - One reason is that industry is mainly US driven and has no
>collective
> > knowledge, experience and practice of languages at this level.
> > Multilingualism is a difficult and complex area. Stakeholders prefer
>to
> > address it as an internationalisation+localisation
>
>Internationalization and localization are simply two aspects of product
>development in response to a multilingual environment. The fact that
>industry identifies these two items as significant in their own right
>does not make industry, or even US industries, ignorant of
>multilingualism.

Same comment as above. I do not want to discuss this kind of point. You are 
perfectly entitled to submit them. But you should understand at your level 
of expertise why they may be questionned.

> > Another problem with Jefsey is that he only considers the "Web" as one
> > application on the network and not as the main system.
>
>There is nothing about this draft that limits its focus of application
>to the Web.

It would be surprising it would, since its purpose is to apply a solution 
to the web in order to extend it to the entire Internet architecture.

What I find delightful is your capacity to not respond.
But this capacity is not ignored.
Have great vacations.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru