Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829100328.05911b30@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:09:56 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>,
	iesg@iesg.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06EDF11B@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE06EDF11B@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 05:00 29/08/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
>
> > >XML, HTML, etc. are not IETF protocols and should not be the main
> > >consideration in IETF work on IETF documents,
> >
> > They are specifically quoted by the Charter. Also is CLDR...
>
>These are cited in the charter only as examples in a statement to the
>effect that "the RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely
>adopted in various protocols and text formats..."

Yes then?
BTW is CLDR an IETF protocol? I tried to get the insurrence that 
there would never be IPR attached to it. Never got it. Since it is a 
way to introduce and stabilise a proprietary file in every Linux 
system, I am interested in the license and in the warranty it will 
never permit protected inclusions. All the more than I would prefer a 
community proposition. May be a good solution would be a structural alliance?

My concern is also the magnitude of the project and the allocated 
interest and the voluntaries. Also the legal responsibility in case 
of error (I am only rising questions from Gov officials).

Nevertheless a lot of time has been spent on XML. And the only 
compatibility which has been worked on is with XML librairies. I do 
not oppose that (one of the authors puiblishes one), but I would 
appreciate other protcols and processes such as OPES, DNS, computer 
languages (I was opposed when discussing java), project (I docimented 
CRC enough...) PPP, IANA, etc.have been considered.

> > It is to note that ISO 639-4 work is about discussing guidelines in
> > that area. This work is under way and was not considered.
>
>Mr. Morfin appears to me to have no more than a very vague sense of the
>scope of ISO 639-4.

This is somewhat fun as I am a contributor.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf