Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050510022435.041290c0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 03:27:46 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations
In-Reply-To: <002a01c55815$27558240$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050508032918.039af710@mail.jefsey.com>
	<6.0.0.20.2.20050508154021.06275280@itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp>
	<01LO1QSCZ7S800004T@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050509181241.048ab7f0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002a01c55815$27558240$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 01:40 14/05/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
> > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
> > To: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> > Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 3:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] RFC 2277 - considerations
>...
> > This is because scripts do not belong to RFC 3066 but to RFC 2277.
>...
>
>Our charter clearly directs us to address the question of script 
>identification
>in our update to 3066.

Hi! Randy,
Glad you noted that, since the review of the Charter has not been carried yet!

The Charter says:
"- For extensibility, it is expected that the document will describe how 
generative mechanisms could use ISO 15924 and UN M.49 codes without 
explicit registration of all combinations. The current registry contains 
pairs like uz-Cyrl/uz-Latn and sr-Cyrl/sr-Latn, but RFC 3066 contains no 
general mechanism or guidance for how scripts should be incorporated into 
language tags; this replacement document is expected to provide such a 
mechanism."

1. "extensibility" is a W3C key requirement, where IETF uses more usually 
"scalability". From what the authors have documented  (their initial Draft 
being the Bible of this WG) they are interested in a single need (other 
concerns [DNS, Java, OPES, LDAP, etc.] being out of scope) which is a 
problem of the W3C about XML Addison fully documented. This problem was 
presented as resulting from the langtag libraries limitations. There may be 
tens of existing or future applications. IETF being mainly interested in 
network architecture, I did not pay a special attention, trusting Addison; 
and trusting Mark when he said CLDR has no problem (but never addressed my 
questions). My interest is in a multilingual framework, which can be 
adapted to particular needs, as per the Charter.

2. I now see that that quoted particular problem is not related to the 
langtags librairies, but to the limitations of the charsets librairies. And 
that the idea is to use the langtag to carry a payload which does not 
belong to it, as specified by a previous RFC.

This does not change much in terms of architectural framework, since the 
langtag can be used as a data base for everything missing elsewhere. But it 
changes the way we are to study and address the Charter request. This is an 
RFC 2130 violation and an absurd request. Full stop. But it is necessary to 
address if to an absurd need.

This must be made clear to all, if to reach a consensus, and why it is not 
possible to do in the normal way. Otherwise no one will ever understand 
why, when the charset, the language, the region, the referent and the style 
are at least necessary to document the linguistic aspects of a document 
(together with a reference to the date of generation to know the used 
ersion of the standard), you want to have two possibly different or even 
conflicting charsets defined and no referent and no style.

Very interesting.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru