Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613132652.045e0a90@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:32:28 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0639834E@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0639834E@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Subject: RE: Swiss German, spoken
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

On 06:43 13/06/2005, Peter Constable said:
>The *only* reason that there is an issue with registering what Karen has
>asked for in the case of "gsw" is that we are in a transitional stage.
>She *could* register "i-gsw", but we know now that in a years time or so
>"gsw" will probably be provided under the terms of an anticipated RFC
>3066ter.

Dear Peter,
we all agree that this is a transitional stage, but towards what? You 
confuse your proposition with a certitude (this is not "probably", 
but  "possibly"). As long as the transition stay within classification, I 
can only object when you by-pass the rules for you (TJ/CN) and embarrass 
Karen. When you make it de facto normative you trespasses your scope.

I proposed the way to make everyone happy: to include a degree of liberty 
to the language (I named the referent) and another one to the user (I named 
it the style).

>If you were paying attention, Mr. Morfin, you would see that what is
>happening is advising so as to avoid conflicts. It is *not* the case
>that we don't want what she's asking for, nor is it the case that don't
>understand what she's asking for or why she needs it. It is *not* the
>case that we don't know how to provide what she's asking for; it is only
>a matter that all the infrastructure we anticipate for doing it is not
>yet finished.

I understand what you try for a few years. I regret you do not want to hear 
what we are doing. We will support you as long as you stay within the scope 
of your proposition. I said that to Hjulstad in Paris. This is true both at 
ISO and in here.

Now, here you are reasoning about possible situations. IMHO you reasoning 
is flawed because you confuse models and metamodels. I know ISO 12620 and 
11179 are not exciting reading and not finished yet too. But generalisation 
without staying consistent with them is building structural conflicts. I am 
not a linguist. I am an engineer and a network architect. I am interested 
in models, logic and interactive systems. Your logic is acceptable as long 
as you stay in concepts (what is OK for your typographers/publisher ISO 
639-3 area). But beyond this is layer violation. I am sure there are US 
people able to help you read and understand ISO 11179.

I fully agree we are in a difficult situation since neither your 
infrastructure nor our is yet finished. This is why I suggest we cooperate 
and accept to start from standards which have already been established. Not 
to create new conflicts. Also why I suggest that we start from your current 
positions (Draft 3066, ISO 639-3 parts pasted in ISO 639-4) and edit them 
to contain them into their own area.

>Please stop raising alarm bells when there is no fire.

I suggest you document what would be your best whole procedure: IESG said 
that this list will be revamped by the Draft, I suppose it is normal that 
it documents the best way for her to operate. I add that as soon as gsw 
spoken would be registered, I will want it to be registered for signs in 
France - not as Alsatian - (multilingual, multimodal, multimedia, 
multitechnology, multinational versatility is of the essence to what we 
should do).

jfc



_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages