Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050410193918.0d319910@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:35:06 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org,
	"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: seeking resolution of the Great Script Debate
In-Reply-To: <42595842.175B@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0AFA3A9C@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<42595842.175B@xyzzy.claranet.de>
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

Frank, Jukka,
IMHO this debate started the wrong way with first a final proposition being 
proposed and progressively basic Charter issues emerging. I am a network 
man and not competent in external applications such as LDAP, XML, HTML, 
etc. I am somewhat interested in CLDR because it may add/interfere with the 
inner structure of a network operating system (NOS). I therefore tend to 
trust Addison as a W3C person when he speaks of XML. But obviously I am 
interested to understand the real XML lower level needs when they may 
relate with the NOS or with protocols.

 From what I understand from Addison, the intricacy of the XML system 
impeaches to think of another XML architectural solution? Your comments are 
really welcome, in the same way as Addison proceeded: discussing the cons 
and pros. (we cannot accept Jukka's "It would take too much time to explain 
all the conceptual errors involved" comment: we are here to specify network 
protocol related issues - and further as underlined by Jown Cohan - we are 
told to be dependent in XML demands. The least XML people can do is to 
document them).

Our own need is simple: the members of a user class "A" share a context "A" 
with a group of resources "A", our job as a CRC (context reference center) 
is to maintain and make accessible the data of this context "A" to all the 
participants to the "A" externet registered to the "A" registry. Such 
context may contain every information the "A" Members may decide to store 
there. We started with DNS root, PAD, reference links and work on tags and 
a language to describe/use the context elements. Some context elements 
could certainly be (like for example the various tables used for the tags) 
maintained through CRCD subscriptions (context reference compact disk) 
proposed by intelligent services providers and formatted updates 
(comparable to anti-virus support).

For example we can certainly conceive XML documents (or LDAP, etc.) 
including xml:lang=$langtag and the $langtag variable to be converted from 
a local context search or by an OPES/ONES acting on the page output/input, 
in taking care of the specifics of the concerned application. Our interest 
is not in format but in content. The content description and usage should 
be universal and the formats should be documented by the application 
designers. We are ready to best help, but not to the detriment of other 
general principles, equal and stable for everyone. The adequation of a 
format participates to the adequation and competitiveness of an 
application. The users are to chose on a network by the users for the users.
jfc

At 18:45 10/04/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Addison Phillips wrote:
>
> > XML doesn't *need* or *want* two ways to identify language.
>
>But it has encoding and allows other meta-data, in the case of
>XHTML I could use something like...
>
>  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
>  <meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript" />
>
>...to define a script in addition to the old xml:lang= or lang=
>language.
>
> > it can't GET a new built in attribute that uses a URL or any
> > other format
>
>It also can't get a new built-in attribute for say the location
>- but it's simple to add this meta-data where needed.
>
> > (see: "the huge success of XML 1.1").
>
>That's apparently a joke, without knowing what's going on I've
>almost started a flame-war on the xml2rfc list only because I
>dared (durst ?) test version="1.1".
>
> > Locale identifiers for Web services can be URLs and may very
> > well be. But they are orthogonal to this discussion.
>
>Why ?  Maybe we should add scripts to the "charset" instead of
>the languages.  Using Unicode everywhere caused this mess, so
>it's only fair if they fix it, charset="UTF-8-mainly-Latn" or
>whatever.
>           Bye, Frank
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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