Return-Path: Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.1.11-Mandrake-RPM-2.1.11-1mdk) with LMTP; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:25:29 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F2F61B8F for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:25:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05620-07 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:25:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3576161B8D for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:25:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CmKL3-0002cZ-P1; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:13:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CmKIz-0000xf-97 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:11:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29139 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:11:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CmKVT-0002Ll-BO for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:24:10 -0500 Received: from lns-p19-19-idf-82-249-7-129.adsl.proxad.net ([82.249.7.129] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1CmKIk-00086G-CR; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:10:50 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050105195455.050c6660@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:10:16 +0100 To: "Peter Constable" , From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2A30128B X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: Subject: Re: Language Tags: Response to a part of Jefsey's comments concerning the W3C X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no At 16:29 05/01/2005, Peter Constable wrote: > > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" > > > why not to follow under IAB guidance (or to review) the charter I >proposed > > yesterday, in an IETF way everyone could participate, and to have all >these > > applications supported one shot in working on a linguistic ontology >where > > each language instance would be documented by an ad hoc authoritative > > source. Otherwise it could not be the standard you wish. > >The objective of RFC 3066 or any successor is not language documentation >(which I understand to mean more or less language description). Perhaps >I misunderstand what you're saying here. The first documentation is the kind of tag (or tags) needed by the RFC 3066 users. The language support (which actually correpond to the support of lingual virtual networks) must be consistant throughout the architecture, operations, applications, manufacturers, etc. or this means that languages which are the ways human beings to relate together would suffer from standard/patent originated divides. This is not acceptable technically and humanly. An ontology describes the reality. A standard shapes it. We do not want tools to shape our behaviours, but their best techical support. jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf