Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050411113258.03afd520@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:51:15 +0200
To: ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <000d01c53e55$aa5a15e0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050409070831.UZSN2132.mta5.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<004a01c53df0$786d46c0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050410194819.0d2fbbd0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<000f01c53e0b$de9b28c0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050411011604.03b48420@mail.jefsey.com>
	<000d01c53e55$aa5a15e0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] Is there a consensus ? (was: Comment: use VU for Vanuatu
 (was: remove region subtag 200))
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Doug,
I thank you for this loyal and clear response, where you show that a tag 
could mean something totally different from what it would mean if it was 
currently built according to the current ISO standard, and that you fully 
support to such a proposition. I did not considered the conflicts or 
confusion in IANA registration during the ISO standard evolution, but I 
suppose your response would be the same.

Since you are one of the most competent, active and acknowledged members of 
this Working Group, I am interested to know if - me apart - this is the 
consensus of this Working Group?
jfc

On 07:16 11/04/2005, Doug Ewell said:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
>
> > This means (I obviously assume big changes which are claimed never to
> > happen :-) that nothing opposes that fra-Cyrl-US would still mean
> > French writen in Cyrilic as spoken in the USA - while fra may have
> > changed in that far future to Franglish, Cyrl to Cypriot revision of
> > Latin and US to United States of Australia.
>
>Correct, except that the language subtag in question would be 'fr', not
>'fra'.
>
> > - this is IETF not ISO and no position by ISO can be taken for
> > granted: we have no control.
>
>Correct.
>
> > - the draft precisely wants a solution which rules out any risk of
> > that kind
>
>Correct.
>
> > - this is indeed a fundamental features of the Draft, and that it has
> > been discussed at great length. This does not change anything to it.
> > This WG is to discuss Drafts only to address its Charter.
>
>Correct.
>
> > You document that the draft does not match the charter.
>
>Absolutely FALSE.  How can you possibly reach that conclusion?  The
>charter says:
>
>"For stability, it is expected that the document will describe how the
>meaning of language tags remains stable, even if underlying references
>should change, and how the structure is to remain stable in the future."
>
>Decoupling the subtags in the registry from strict adherence to the ISO
>standards is how the draft achieves this goal.
>
> > I noted that, and also the conflict in the charter which calls for an
> > independence from the ISO evolutions and the possibility to identify
> > the subtags in the tag.
>
>For God's sake.  The length and position of subtags within the tag
>identify their type, and the description fields in the registry identify
>their meaning.
>
> > IMHO this calls for a request of guidance to the IESG if the debate on
> > the charter (we still need to have, as Randy underlined it) does not
> > deliver a solution.
>
>Every day you amaze me more.
>
>-Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California
>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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