Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050410012624.03b19ce0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:33:55 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Compatibility with existing use (LDAP)
In-Reply-To: <001601c53d4e$6a5ab4c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF78037C9AFC@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com>
	<001601c53d4e$6a5ab4c0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
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

Dear Randy,
what you propose here has a name: flexibility. And flexibility is a 
requirement for scalability. Why I disagree with the initial approach of 
this WG is because we did not start in considering the Charter, what it 
wanted and what it permited to discuss to provide the best and most 
generalized response.

I think that what you suggest is exactly what the Charter should lead us to.
1. to help users to use ISO standards and any other one or private 
proposition they may have to best understand each others
2. to propose a framework for every alternative - including APMD format - 
to be precisely documented, adequately supported, used as required and 
fully understood.

Cheers!
jfc


At 23:52 09/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>As a technical contributor, the longer this thread goes on
>the more consideration I think we should give to alternatives like
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lilly-content-script-01.txt
>
>If we were to treat the identification of the language(variant),
>the script, and the orthography of a text as three distinct
>attributes, rather than trying to structure them into a single string
>called a "language tag" would it ultimately make things simpler
>or more complicated?
>
>I find this approach intuitively appealing in the case where there are
>multiple orthographic alternatives in the same script for a
>given language, yet it has no impact at all on texts in languages
>where identification of the script or orthography in use is of
>no particular interest.  Even transcriptions and transliterations can
>be handled nicely into this kind of approach, since they just become
>orthographic alternatives.
>
>It would, however, require a re-thinking of how we've handled
>German and Chinese.
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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