Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050612090500.055bf5b0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:25:50 +0200
To: IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages@iana.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <p06110418bed113516728@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <20050611002848.9911061BAD@eikenes.alvestrand.no>
	<004601c56ea9$c6fc9ea0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050611204855.038e4af0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<p06110418bed113516728@[10.0.1.2]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Swiss German, spoken
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

[Michael asked several times that I do not respond to him, so I respect his 
imposed dispractice of IETF usages, but this is not IETF, to avoid 
irritating him further while I rejoice to agree with him for the first time]

I wander were Michael can find "venom" in my mail. I underlined the 
ridiculous of the situation a given affinity group locked itself into, and 
therefore the need for it to detach itself from its typographers origin 
when dealing with languages. I note that:

1. fortunately this seems to have been heard since Michael now supports the 
registration of the two requested tags, what is Internet-wise a very wise 
solution. This is certainly in conflict with the WG-ltru's current 
consensus by exhaustion. It is therefore extremely sad he refused to join 
it. I failed making the WG-ltru accept and address this kind of problem: 
who better than him could succeed? This would certainly help many to come 
back and contribute (see below), giving a real chance to the Draft 
(provided the topic distribution between the two drafts is better made 
between what resorts to this mailing list [registry] and not: but again who 
better than him could clarify that? I am sure he could even help convincing 
his counter-part Doug Barton to join and help with the IANA issues). No one 
would more happy than me of such a "divine" issue.

2. this has also fortunately lead other opinions I share and we will 
support to be able to express themselves. The mistake of associating 
languages and scripts  - Tex (all the more with a lack of precise 
definition for script: for example in an oral for of art, the script is 
what the people say and do). The need to support oral languages - Debbie. 
The dissociation of orthography and languages - John. The wistled languages 
forms - Frank (signs, signals, clicks, and drums should not be forgotten). 
I am sure that, should this mailing list be advertised as it should on the 
IANA we would have more members and more suggestions. (In case Michael 
would say that this remark is "venom": I made that comment about the poor 
presentation of the IANA on the ietf main list and the Chair indicated that 
the suggestion was retained for RFC 2424 bis).

As probably most of us, I first thought that Michael's "bollock" was rude. 
Then I realised I was on the wrong tack and that Michael spoke seaman 
language (registered?). Debbie, Michael was appreciative: he was using 
"bollock" in a bullock's meaning. A bullock is a Royal Infantry person on 
an HMS and a bollock is a pulley on top of a mast. He wanted to say that 
your proposition was a way to strongly pull up the debate. What I agree 
except that you forget signs, clicks and drums and probably many other 
forms of bandwidth specific languages and skip all the complex multimodal 
issues that ISO 639-6 does not seem to structurally address (what however a 
proper respect of ISO 11179 could permit to branch - even if ISO 11179 has 
not yet addressed the multilingual aspects yet, what makes us to consider 
our own server architecture as temporary).

I repeat my information: we have good hopes UNITAG can support this list 
registry in a few months. So we are quite interested in having it 
consistent with ISO 12620, 11179, a comprehensive 639-4, 3166 and even 
15924 (however if we have no problem in referencing it, we obviously have a 
problem in using conceptual metamodel layer) and consistently open to other 
correlated models. I will try to address the Access Grid architecture 
principles quickly enough for this list (which is probably one of the most 
active IANA Registry reviewing-list with ccTLDs) may comment it.

jfc


At 00:24 12/06/2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>I would like to suggest an immediate implementation of the principles set 
>forth in RFC 3934 here, please. This participant has nothing but venom to 
>offer to our work. Indeed, the only thing apart from venom on offer is 
>unpleasant disruption of our work.
>
>This is my opinion as the RFC 3066 Tag Reviewer.
>
>At 22:48 +0200 2005-06-11, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>Dear all,
>>What Doug says seems unfortunately right. If I read you all correctly: 
>>Karen, who is not Peter and Mike to register for free, on behalf of their 
>>corporations, entries following the rules of a probably never to be RFC, 
>>is to send a letter to the Library of Congress in Washington with a 
>>shipment of 50 books of a quasi never printed language to wait months for 
>>this millenary core European language to be registered in a Californian 
>>host created by Brother Doug Engelbart and now under the disputed 
>>management  of ICANN
>>
>>I opposed most of you because I thought that Peter convinced you of his 
>>ideas (which are probably correct for a printer/publisher) and you 
>>understood where his strategy commercially lead you. But such a vivid 
>>example of what you accept from your Draft 3066 bis shows that most 
>>probably you do not have even understood this. Think of the impact of 
>>this case: I will use in the slides I prepare for my July 1st workshop on 
>>"Referencing and Cultural Sovereignties". Because what the Internet 
>>community expects from BCP 47 is precisely what Karen wants: to describe 
>>how IANA easily registers tags which are not listed in ISO documents and 
>>the community needs, whatever the position of ISO. This will be 
>>documented in the ccTLD/NIC Draft under preparation to be presented at 
>>the Luxembourg meeting. Your target should not be to censor users' needs 
>>in using ISO as a filter. It should be to advise users and ISO so they 
>>avoid conflicts. Here you only show that either you do not want it, 
>>either that you did not understand it or that you do not know how to do it.
>>
>>But this is your problem.
>>
>>FYI, we start working on the AFRAC CRC server this week. Our target is to 
>>support this kind of registration by early October in an ISO 12620 and 
>>ISO 11179 compatible manner, through the project UNITAG. It will permit a 
>>correlation with ISO 639-3, 5, 6 according to the ISO 639-4 guidelines 
>>(either as discussed in Varsaw or as per a working ISO 639-4 bis 
>>extension we would probably complete based upon experience by the year's 
>>end). Obviously we relate this work to terminology and to any language 
>>expression (scripts, signs, oral, icons, restrictions and combinations) 
>>and security/confirmation elements. In this we certainly consider the 
>>help from IETF, ISO, UNESCO, MINC, W3C, etc. documents, but we are mainly 
>>motivated by the requirements of a user-centric multilingual, multimedia, 
>>multimodal, multitechnology network architecture. We hope that we can 
>>come by fall with a proposition of cooperation of your IANA registry for 
>>the written aspects.
>>
>>jfc
>
>--
>Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages