Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050526125216.03a8fe20@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:55:51 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <005d01c561b0$fd0aa9c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05EFFDF3@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<005d01c561b0$fd0aa9c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] last response (was: character set considerations materialis
 contradictory)
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 07:08 26/05/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
> > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
> > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:35 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations 
> materialiscontradictory
>...
> > Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end
> > users, and especially will not require them to type them in, and since
> > IT professionals building applications who may need to type these in
> > will almost certain have other reasons why they need to be able to type
> > a-z, I think this is not a concern that needs to be addressed in this
> > draft (no more than it being a concern e.g. for HTTP and countless other
> > specifications).
> >
> > Therefore, I suggest that this item be closed.
>...
>
>Since there haven't been any proposals for specific changes to section
>7 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-02.txt,
>I've closed this item with a status of "rejected".

Dear Mr. Presuhn,
I think I have been clear enough in repeating that:

- characterisation of application's "reasonability" as not exposing 
non-ASCII characters,
- the concept of outcast "end users" who would have only a limited access 
to IETF deliverables,
- imprecise considerations such "will _almost_certain_" ignoring one shot 
all the non-ASCII development environments,

are hardly acceptable in order to support a proposition seriously wanting 
to be a scalable IETF standard for the whole internet

I note that for three hundred years communications have known to build 
language/script independent protocols accessible to everyone and to the 
reading of every lawmaker, Judge and Jury in every courts of the world. I 
have no doubt the WG you chair can come with a similar approach, as a still 
pending serious reading of its Charter would have shown it has been 
entrusted to by the IESG.

Tired to blow in the violin of this mailing list, I went yesterday on 
records about the collective attitude of the affinity group leading this WG 
to a consensus by exhaustion, making it an RFC 3774 show case. So, I will 
not come back on the points I made. My censors will be able to go to these 
two mails. All the more than everyone will suspect your repetition of Peter 
Constable's quote and your wording were a bait on purpose, as a way to 
tackle my yesterday mail. Actually I take advantage of it to copy in Bcc 
all those who did not believe it possible.

I expect that you will now ban me again for disrespect of the Chair, 
defending technical principles supporting the concepts of national 
sovereignty, facilitating international cooperation, cultural empowerment 
and absolute respect of users' person, rights and equal opportunity which 
are explicit or implicit core values of every SDO and of every postal and 
communication architecture for centuries.

If you feel these values and objectives, which are my reason in life for 
decades, are no part of the IETF vision I can only feel sorry for you. I 
then suggest you introduce a Draft to also ban them as a disgrace for the 
centralised Internet you seem to want to build. I also feel sorry for the 
good work of this WG IRT the XML W3C says to need. It is hurt by their 
authors' pretension to make it a new BCP 47 and your politicking. We are 
here to discuss global scalable cute technical solutions, for their 
intelligence and/or for their support of the real world. Not to share into 
now plain to many cross-SDOs commercial maneuvers.

I proposed many times we try to find a consensual proposition addressing 
that commercial interest, avoiding a market dominance and matching the 
Multilingual Internet requirements. This is because I doubt market 
organised joint monopolies can succeed nowadays, but I realise the world is 
not ready to practically replace them. In refusing/fighting this 
proposition and in asking too much, you will only push many to awake and to 
strive to develop responses preventing a lingual tools market control by 
any one, even by leading stakeholders.

For that last reason, and for that reason only, we can all thank you.
jfc




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru