Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050109171327.05005610@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:48:00 +0100
To: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>,
	"Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>, <ietf-languages@iana.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE04B001B6@RED-MSG-52.redmon
	d.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE04B001B6@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-4ABA778C
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

Peter,
I am sorry that so obvious comments of mine are to be repeated and repeated 
again. A BCP is to document a standard approved behavior. What was proposed 
does not report but to shape. It should result from a consensus, from every 
affected areas, no area can be "rejected" (all the more a network core 
area) and every human being has to be able declare (not register - who 
could have authority to oppose???) and describe his own vision of his own 
language.

At 17:03 09/01/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>Oh??!! I believe there have been usage examples involving Chinese,
>Serbian and Azeri; there are others that could be provided, but a
>multiplicity of examples doesn't illustrate a principle related to
>functional requirements better than one.

We had many English (not tagging) related issues or comparisons. No 
equivalent for other languages. This looks like a single test bed for 
universality.

> > And I saw
> > DNS, new developments, other technical areas' needs objected.
>
>DNS was rejected (at least in the mind of some); I don't specifically
>recall other things rejected.

That DNS was "rejected" from considerations when proposing an Internet 
standard document kills the seriousness of the document. None of the other 
needs I rose was even discussed (I do not expect everyone to be competent 
in others' areas, but I expect everyone to be honnest in considering the 
others' areas needs and constraints, and listening the others).

>This isn't about identifying Trustees or legal language authorities
>(which probably don't exist in the case of the vast majority of the
>world's languages.)

"probably" : hardly a standardization language.

>It's simply about making declarations of what
>language and written form content is in.

Yes, provided everyone concerned can register tags on what he needs to tag. 
Not only one single tag registered by who knows who and the rest patented 
as value added to that tag.

>And it's not about standardizing that only certain distinctions in
>language variety or written form can be made. It's simply about
>providing a coherent tagging system that can support whatever
>distinctions people may want to make.

True. see what I said above and what you say "whatever distinction people 
may want to make" ... pural, not exclusive singular.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages