Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050504143310.04e7d040@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:01:52 +0200
To: Marion Gunn <mgunn@egt.ie>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now
In-Reply-To: <42789A0C.D3A3E955@egt.ie>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05D62A8E@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050504021323.0311e500@mail.jefsey.com>
	<004d01c55063$1dcbb140$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<42789A0C.D3A3E955@egt.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 11:46 04/05/2005, Marion Gunn wrote:
>True. And I regret raising that point (if it was I who first did so). I
>am happy with Doug's response, and with Randy's (below), and would like
>to ask for a quick end to this particular thread, so the real work can
>go on.

Dear Marion,
you did not "rise" that point - you just quoted a necessary issue. The re=
al=20
matter of this WG is here and its real work is to address that problem in=
 a=20
way which addresses the problems met by the whole internet community with=
=20
RFC 3066. These problems are at least (there may be others experts of thi=
s=20
WG would add from their experience):

- Stability and accessibility of the underlying ISO standards
- Difficulty with registrations and their acceptance
- Lack of clear guidance on how to identify script and region where neces=
sary
- Lack of parseability and the ability to verify well-formedness.
- Lack of specified algorithms, apart from pure prefix matching, for=20
operations on language tags.

You will note this means at least three groups of resulting issues:

1. to address these points in the ASCII Internet context, what means a=20
better writting of the previous document.
2. to address these points in a Multilingual Internet context, where most=
=20
of the quoted problems results in part or in toto from their non=20
multilingual approach (when you solve a complex problem, you usually find=
=20
that you solved also several other smaller problems)
3. to address the legacy of some applications having either or both relie=
d=20
on the RFC 3066 limitations or not expected this evolution.

Today this WG only really addresses point 3 in the context of XML and may=
=20
be (?) CLDR. This should be part of the second document foreseen by the=20
Charter. The Charter and the first document still need to be worked on.=20
Without it, the current proposition has not the necessary framework to st=
and.

jfc

PS. Since you were not involved earlier and you may not have lurked, the=20
disagreement is easy to understand. RFC 3066 is uncertain enough to have=20
statisfied everyone for four years. But Unicode and W3C people have found=
=20
that they needed it to be more precise, created a Draft and now a WG. Mos=
t=20
of the others are not excited because IETF is not interested in=20
multilingualism (this is documented by IAB RFC 3869 which lists the=20
Internet R&D priorities) and because the ASCII Internet works today. This=
=20
disinterest has lead most of the Internet world outside of the IETF (you=20
may have a count of the non English mother tongue participants to this WG=
)=20
and because this is a general IETF/ICANN attitude often expressed by Vint=
=20
Cerf all over the WSIS process: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."=20
http://techrepublic.com.com/5102-7914-5178386.html

In reality the Internet does work but does not fit the job. Doug's non=20
corrected lacks of knowledge of the real world internet and programming=20
practices, only shows that IETF members just do not realise it by lack of=
=20
basic information (interest?). There are two options (and I think the=20
earliest they converge the best it is):

1. to document and build a Multilingual Internet. This participates from =
a=20
common consistent process of Internet technology upgrade. The technical=20
implications on the Internet architecture (externets) is a really major=20
one. But I hardly see how we can spare it.

2. to build a Multilingual New Global Network. ML.NGN. This is also what =
we=20
work on.








>mg
>
>Scr=EDobh Randy Presuhn:
> >
> > Hi -
> >
> > The translation of field identifiers is the registry file is not this=
 WG's
> > problem. If someone want to do it in some file they've generated from
> > the registry, that's *their* (and their users') problem, not ours...
>--
>
>Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
>27 P=E1irc an Fh=E9ithlinn, Baile an
>Bh=F3thair, Co. =C1tha Cliath, =C9ire.
>* mgunn@egt.ie * eamonn@egt.ie *
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru