Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050107190738.047b8eb0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:14:05 +0100
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	<ietf-languages@iana.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE04AFF80A@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE04AFF80A@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
	x-avg-checked=avg-ok-40C4E61
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Language tags, the phillips draft, and procedures
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

At 18:05 07/01/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>For my part, I won't say I'm frustrated by the analysis you gave; just
>disappointed that I haven't been able to get us closer to the place
>where we agree on what the dichotomies are, which I had hoped to do.

I fully join Peter's point of view and frustration. Because the only real 
problem is not in the draft but in the way its authors are (willingly if I 
read Addison correctly) locked into a universal BCP, instead of an area of 
application practice documentation. If the RFC 3066 users want to improve 
language tagging one way, good to them. But it is not acceptable that this 
becomes _the_ IANA way the Internet community shall have to tag languages 
from now on.

What concerns me more is the real usage of the RFC 3066 because I realize 
that the usage fragmentation we want to avoid, already exists.
jfc




_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages