Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050411222843.02f8a280@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:48:04 +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: <010201c53ece$4b970260$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE059C9CB0@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<010201c53ece$4b970260$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

At 21:40 11/04/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
 >That's why I'm suggesting that language, script, and orthography be
>handled as *three* attributes.

Agreed.


> > If that idea is to be considered at all, then it requires written-form
> > tags that involve more than just an ISO 15924 ID.
>
>Agreed.

Agreed.


> > But then you have a
> > significant usability problem: should my current en-GB content be tagged
>
>(alternatives elided)
>
> > This scheme requires far more user guidance than what is currently
> > proposed, and more than is feasible: it requires telling them how to
> > judge e.g. whether a country distinction reflects a distinction in
> > language variety, a distinction in written form, or both.
>...

The whole question of this WG. Is it "user guidance" or "user's guidance". 
Is a language a way people claiming to speak that language MUST speak, or 
is a language the first societal contract among people the relations 
assistance tools and services MUST support?

Your use of "orthography" is interesting to replace (?), complete (?) ISO 
3166. Is this a way to consider a geopolitical reference through a common 
orthography (as taught in school?).

jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru