Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050613172322.03adbeb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:19:11 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	"Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE063984EA@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
	<634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BBB8B46@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE063984EA@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0BBB8B46@irvmbxw01.quest.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

At 16:55 13/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>Correction: 639-3 has not yet advanced to the FDIS (final draft int'l
>standard) stage. It is currently under ballot as DIS, which ballot
>period closes in a few weeks. If approved without a large number of
>technical comments (which I anticipate), it will be submitted for FDIS
>ballot, but if not approved or if there are many comments requesting
>technical changes, then it could remain at the DIS stage.

At 16:56 13/06/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>Peter wrote:
> > It is *not* the case
> > that we don't want what she's asking for,
>Yep. Quite the contrary, we want *exactly* what she's asking for. It is 
>merely a question of timing.

I am glad of these two mails. They illustrates again the problem we face: 
we agree, but that your solution set is shaky and ours is not ready. So, we 
would be better off in cooperating and/or in getting assistance from Govs, 
as per RFC 3869 and WSIS consensus.
jfc

PS. Some remarks to Peter if it may help.

1. archives about TJ/CN registrations are open to all.
2. IMHO the main problem of ISO 639-3 you will face is the duplicates with 
ISO 639-4. They may unnecessarily delay both. You should clarify.
3. you say in another mail "For some reason, you seem to think your 
inability is laudable while my same inability is short-sighted and 
attempting to by-pass rules." Our common inability comes from your approach 
which has some pros for you. What is laudable is to propose a way out you 
could accept, what is short-sighted is to refuse to consider it. All the 
more than I think my approach is fully respectfull of yours and gives you 
many descriptive pluses, while offering a full spectrum of possibilities to 
quantified/normative aspects.

I first thought we could address your issue at Internet level and I 
proposed a solution. I then saw better the picture and the only solution is 
to go by the book when it exists already and to dialog over real 
application when it is not. Keeping confusing issues, concepts and values, 
exceptions and standards, descriptive and normative elements, 
instantiation, version and application, etc. will lead to no where serious. 
For six months I tell you to proceed by the book, step by step, without 
wanting to swallow the world and me one shot. We deal with registries and 
want to add script information on the Internet side. By the book it means: 
ISO 11179 and charsets. From there on one can tune. Ignoring them is 
creating a flood of conflicts.

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages