Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504021323.0311e500@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 03:37:55 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05D62A8E@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05D62A8E@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 19:58 03/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org]
>On Behalf Of JFC
> > (Jefsey) Morfin
> > This is shocking under the pen of a global standadizer. I will not
> > comment on the contempt for "end-users", non for the exclusion
> > of non-Latin script programmers.
>
>Do you make as much fuss about (say) the fact that HTTP headers use
>Latin characters and that one can't substitute Arabic or other scripts?
>
>We're talking about documentation of protocol elements. When end users
>are involved, I think everyone here would strongly support the need for
>"multilingualization", but his is not an end-user issue.

Dear Peter,
This kind of question is always embarassing, because it shows how much the 
author do not understand what he discusses. I know this is not on purpose. 
I will address it to show IESG, and possibly IAB, in appeal that I tried 
every time I could to explain how much this WG is out of its track.

This is not an accademic meeting over three ISO standard's conflicting 
oddities. This is not a W3C forum trying to patch an XML misconception. 
This is not a few followers helping with the wording of a twice last-calls 
denied concept.

This is an IETF WG having to study, check and document an Internet and 
Internet application wide response to the need of identifying and tagging 
the languages. For and according to the Internet standard process to 
generate standards, documents, procedures, protocols, best practices. For 
the Internet to become legally acceptable as a global system.

To do that this WG should have attracted enough authoritative experts (or 
declare itself uncompetent) to study and complet from their own experience, 
developments and plans, the points in the Charter.

I am sure that in this process you would have realized that HTTP is an 
Internet protocol in the area of this WG as are every Internet protocol. So 
you would understand that I am making no special, but general, fuss. Your 
contribution to the WG would have been still more valuable, because you 
would have learned from seasoned experts that the very basis of a network 
architecture is consistency and coherence. A coherence with the human 
protocols (languages) it supports the ASCII Internet has not. A big problem 
our job is precisely to start addressing.

For the rest, I am not in a position to comment: please document (RFC?) 
what is an "end user" for an IETF WG. I obviously understand what it may 
mean for an host application designer (like W3C?) but here it does not make 
any sense to me.

all the best.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru