Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050513004551.060318b0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 05:58:19 +0200
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05EFFDF3@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05EFFDF3@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] sad and afflicting (was [psg.com #969]character set
 considerations material is contradictory)
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Peter,
I am sad for you for your afflicting comments.

At 17:35 12/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end
>users

I explained several times how inapropriate is the term "end user" in an end 
to end distributed architecture. In the context of your remarks it shows 
you categorise the users of IETF deliverables, and discriminate their 
access to a common information on the base of their language. I do not want 
to use big words, but this is a patent violation of Human Rights. As is the 
whole langtag concept for that reason.

<snip>
That a Microsoft expert deliberately ignores the non-ascii development 
environments (of his clients) to justify a document, is afflicting.

>BTW, the *only* suggestion that "'intelligent people' use ascii
>compatible keyboards" has originated with the author of these comments.

The terms "intelligent people" is a terminology of the draft 11.txt 
(00.txt). I ask if the authors' wording implies their intelligent people 
(whatever they may mean by that) use ascii compatible keyboards? Please 
does not reverse the suggestion: in my country it qualifies as a criminal 
offense. I suppose it is the case in the other countries applying the UN 
Declaration on Human Rights. It is advisable that IETF documents start 
correcting their lingual discrimination.

You may not know that, I was a GNSO candidate at the ICANN BoD in 9/2001 to 
campaign against the lingual divide. It lead to a ccTLD resolution at the 
Montevideo meeting. FYI it was also to campaign against the concentration 
of root servers in the USA. When I made my public  speach on 9/8, I was 
laughed at and teased, the same I am here. For the same reason: experts 
hates being said the obvious because they should have seen it - beati 
pauperes spiritu. 3 days later on, one root server disapeared in the WTC. 
The WSIS picked that point in its resolutions. Today there are more than 70 
servers around the world - beati pauperes partly won [the file is still the 
NTIA file on the RSSAC ones but on a few others it is already my approach 
...]). Humility and open mind leads to obvious, obvious wins at the end of 
the day. It is a very simple, sometimes slow when you have many experts, 
but a secure rule. You can trust it.

I fully realise that this WG is unwillingly a RFC 3774 show case, so I do 
not want it continue to delay the fix W3C so dearly waits for. I will not 
fight its possibly innapropriately hurting wording now: this is an issue 
with the RFC Editor who feels concerned and will increasingly feel 
concerned with the comming WSIS resolutions on the issue. And I do not seen 
any document published before a long, to take into account Warsaw results, 
etc..

But, I thank you not to add to it. I am sorry: WG management and 
aggresiveness against me, logic contradictions, etc. will not make me to 
call on ADs or IESG or upset me. But this kind of discriminatory words, might.

Please, let have Addison close his Draft, lose the IESG or IETF Last Call, 
ISO 639-4 finalised, this WG review its Charter, build a road-map, produce 
a Framework also respecting the ISO underscore format and the XML separated 
"script, region indications" format and many others, let dig into a few 
concepts about language as human computer sharable relation protocols, fix 
the conflict with charsets declarations, get the text copied around and 
endorsed by concerned communities and made an RFC, may be give me time 
enough to mess it with CRC Canonical Interface Grids, so we can eventually 
have the XML support of BCP 47 documented as an RFC before XML is replaced 
by ASN.2.

This is up to you. I will wait. But stop discriminating. Thank you!
jfc











_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru