Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504124550.031491b0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:44:00 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now
In-Reply-To: <014401c55066$5bd68980$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <014401c55066$5bd68980$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
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 07:01 04/05/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
> >> End users don't have to type the field names.  Programmers, who do,
> >> have access to a Latin-script keyboard.  If you can show me a
> >> programming language or environment that does not require at least
> >> some use of the Latin script, I will re-think my position.
> >
> > This is shocking under the pen of a global standadizer. I will not
> > comment on the contempt for "end-users",
>
>Wouldn't it show *more* contempt for end users to make them type the
>field names?

I am afraid you miss the point. There is no end-users as such. Because the 
technology does not know them. There are end to end connections and users 
to users relations. They can be machines and humans. If they are machines, 
IETF protocols and procedures are used, if they are human languages (human 
protocols) and best practices prevail.

The rest is blahblah. The contempt is that you think you are entitled to 
decide for other users. Your role, and this is why we do not vote but try 
to reach a consensus, is not to decide but to describe what everyone can 
agree. You do not invent something new, you uncover what will appear 
obvious to all.

>User interfaces should have as little as possible to do with database
>details such as field names.  In particular, users who have to deal with
>language tags should not have to type anything.  My language-tag UI
>allows the user to pick subtags from a drop-down list.  The names of
>subtag types, and of course the values, can be localized into any
>language you like (assuming the translations are available).  This has
>nothing to do with changing the field names in the underlying database.

See above. You describe a GUI of your liking/you developped. This very same 
right must be possible to everyone in every language.

> > non for the exclusion of non-Latin script programmers.
>
>You still haven't shown evidence that any programming languages are
>translated into other writing systems, only that it is theoretically
>possible.

Dear Doug, you are supposed to be an expert on this matter. The first time 
you asked it I was polite enough to overlook it. I am afraid this time you 
unconsider yourself as aware of the use of the internet and of computers of 
the people you want to decide about and make this WG to lose credibility.

> > Nor on its political and societal consequences. No on the fact this
> > may be properly in violation of national laws.
>
>If this group is violating any national law for defining a database with
>field names restricted to ASCII, we will be waiting in front of the
>courthouse at the end of a very, very long line.

may be will you want to read the comment above here too.

> > ASCII centrism was an old odd Internet feature, I am afraid you are
> > beginning to make it a boring bug.
>
>Wait, so you don't like "ASCII-centrism," but you resent (a) the
>involvement of Unicode representatives in this WG

Were did you read this??? I am myself an Unicode member.

>and (b) people mentioning Unicode when discussing multiple-script issues.

Were to you read this??? I am against confusion and layer violation. The 
Legacy Internet is in many areas an American (language, culture, legal, 
political, historical) vision of the Global Network. It uses many 
Amercian/ASCII default (as you may recall A in ASCII stands for American). 
One character set, one language, one class, one single group structure, one 
single IANA, one single (lack of) model, one network management, one naming 
system, one numbering system, one governance, etc. and many parameters to 
default zero: no economic model, no statistic system, etc. This is normal 
as this was the purpose of an ARPA/US academic system. It is the well 
identified interest of everyone, starting with the USA to change that and 
build a new environment. What the basic Internet concepts by Robert Khan 
and Louis Pouzin do permit (if you do not believe it, I will be more than 
happy  to give you their mails, but you can just ask the Chair who just 
spent a WE with ITU on the matter).

The transition to the NGN is not simple and cannot be achieved in one day, 
all the more than Users are asking for more than NGN by ITU/IETF.You cannot 
use a magick stick to upgrade it.

So this must proceed topic by topic. IPv4 Internet must transition to IPv6 
Internet, before becomin an Internat. ASCII Internet must transition to 
Multilingual Internet. DNS Internet must (and is) transion(ning) to a 
universal numbering intergovernance. And in so doing, these evolutions 
should converge through scalability. This is the initial bet of Brian 
Carpenter's RFC 1958, up to now, it seems it works.

Don't block it by egocentric concerns on just one or two applications.

>  Not that it's on-topic or anything, but what *is* your preferred 
> approach to character encoding?

dated ISO 10646 numbers.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru