Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050408103302.03adfbc0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:43:06 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] registry should be bilingual
In-Reply-To: <rt-3.0.12-886-5659.7.31028635375374@psg.com>
References: <rt-886@psg.com>
 <rt-3.0.12-886-5659.7.31028635375374@psg.com>
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

On 03:11 08/04/2005, rt+ltru-registry@rt.psg.com said:
>Hi -
>(co-chair hat ON)
>
>The question of adding French translations of specific fields in the registry
>was raised in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00094.html
>
>Though this was discussed at some length on the ietf-languages list, I'd 
>like to
>verify that we have a rough consensus in this WG.  I believe that consensus is
>to reject this proposal.  Please speak up if you have compelling technical 
>arguments
>that this WG should add French translations of specific fields in the 
>registry.

(Various hats ON)

I am surprised by this. I will only repeat my position expressed often on 
the IETF main list and to this IETF WG-ltru: French and English are equally 
compelling for the IANA language tags registry, for reasons which should be 
obvious for standadizers of a global system.

Among these reasons:

- this is the rule of the ISO standards considered by the Charter. 
Additions to these standards are to be homogenous with these standards.
- they make sure that at least experts from two major visions were 
involved: a protection of the interests and rights of every other culture.
- this is a necessary technical seed for the support of multilingualism 
over internationalisation. ISO biculturalism is a first step to what should 
extend to other languages like Spanish, Russian, Chinese and Arabic and, 
further on to every languages, as required by a Multilingual Internet.

The error of RFC 3066 in that area MUST not be repeated. I measure the 
technical complexity of the Multilingual Internet, the IAB avoided to 
consider among its RFC 3869's R&D priorities. But I think that to leave its 
architectural organization to a grassroots process is inappropriate. 
Langtags are by essence the basic building blocks of this evolution. They 
must be standardized as such.

The lack of lingual consistency between BCP 047 and ISO standards would 
therefore prevent any consensus. A lack of consideration of multilingualism 
can only to a Internet balkanization we do not want.

J-F C. Morfin





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru