Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050426005556.03530830@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:34:04 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] (need approval) Working Group submission: LTRU
	registry draft-01
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0B20A2D5@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0B20A2D5@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear co-Chairs,
I am interested to know if you plan to start a debate on the points of the 
Charter Randy described as thorny and to discuss the points in my Review of 
the Draft as announced also by Randy. I must wait for these debates to get 
the positions of this WG on all these points before:

- either writing my own announced Draft to be as near as possible of a 
consensus, since I put myself in priority in the perspective of the WG 
Charter rather than in the continuity of a text which failed twice. This 
text could be an appropriate fix to the explained XML difficulty, but not a 
BCP 047 on Internet language tags framework.

- or accept the changes resulting from this debate as consensual. I note 
that the points of disagreement are those who lead to the lack of consensus 
during the last Last Call. They are mainly the point above and the 
organisation of the ietf-languages list which is one of the key Charter 
point which has never been discussed yet. The organisation and the load for 
the IANA also never got any response. But all this is in my  review.

As explained to Frank we started to write a Draft earlier and waited for 
this debate. Now I am quite busy.
- If you plan this debate I will still wait for it, I will make my delayed 
home work as I can, and I will call for an extra 15 days after I submitted 
my own Draft to have it reviewed.
- If you do not plan to have these debates, I will be less dependent on the 
calendar of this WG to introduce a totally independent Draft. It will then 
get discussed on the general list during the last call, I presume?

Please advise.
jfc



At 20:49 25/04/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>Randy and Martin,
>
>Please approve my submitting the current editor's copy (attached) as 
>draft-01 by responding to this email. I will submit the new draft over a 
>copy of the response.
>
>Then we can proceed to wipe up any remaining issues, hopefully for a 
>timely last call.
>
>Addison
>
>Addison P. Phillips
>Globalization Architect, Quest Software
>http://www.quest.com
>
>Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
>http://www.w3.org/International
>
>Internationalization is not a feature.
>It is an architecture.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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