Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050117191649.047931a0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:12:51 +0100
To: "Jon Hanna" <jon@hackcraft.net>, <ietf-languages@iana.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050117175527.854E65CE5DE9@postie2.hosting365.ie>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050117165232.047ec8e0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050117175527.854E65CE5DE9@postie2.hosting365.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
	x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3D417088
Cc: 
Subject: RE: language tag structure
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

At 18:55 17/01/2005, Jon Hanna wrote:
> > needs, the response is "no one will ever need this".
>That's not the argument. Sure people may need this. I need to figure out how
>to get emulsion paint off a leather coat, but don't expect RFC 3066bis to
>help.

Dear Jon,
as you may have noted I do not discuss the Philips-languages-08.txt Draft. 
I described the 5 sub-tags tag structure our CRC will adopt unless someone 
documents that more are needed.

>It is perfectly possible to come up with an ontology for mechanisms used to
>record text (e.g. handwritten, typed, whatever), we don't need 3066bis to
>record every possible datum about a piece of text or we'll end-up with some
>Borgesian impossibility.

This is not what is discussed. What is discussed is how/if the our stag 
structure is to be organized to support the Philips-languages-08(09?).txt 
requirements. My reading of the whole debate is that the information 
covered by these two sub-tags (which we see necessary in an heterogenous 
network environment) is of no interest to you in an existing document.

So, I do not understand why you comments the style and authority sub-tags 
you do not want to use.

The real possible conflicts I see, and I am surprised no one comments them, 
are:
1. the IRI name-reg issue. A part from quoting the Gospel in an obscure 
way, I would wish to get an authorized response.
2. the need of IANA registration of the langtags I think inappropriate 
unless it is documented as a way to fullfil a specific need. For example 
the "ietf-language@iana.org" mailing list implications are very bizare.

jfc











>Regards,
>Jon Hanna
>Work: <http://www.selkieweb.com/>
>Play: <http://www.hackcraft.net/>
>Chat: <irc://irc.freenode.net/selkie>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages