Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050829193905.04deabc0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:49:02 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to
  BCP
In-Reply-To: <4313448D.7B8F@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <20050829051715.OFHU9276.mta6.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<01ca01c5ac5a$bfe335e0$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<4313448D.7B8F@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

At 19:23 29/08/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Doug Ewell wrote:
>  > "For all I know, the sheer volume of... [blah blah blah] ...
> > is absolutely typical of other IETF Working Groups."
>
>Oh, yes, that's possible.  Apparently the LTRU list was
>more on the busy side, other lists like SASL or NETWRK are
>relatively quiet.  But when I substract what I consider as
>"Jefsey tries to collect points for his appeal" (and Randy
>is forced to track this with the ticket system) it's not
>too bad from my POV.

Dear Frank,
you should add the private mails I received which amount in my 
dedicated mailbox to nearly 500 (but there are duplicates, side 
aspects, etc. in more and in less). Some are from Members of this WG.

>In another article:
>
>| It's hard to follow this line of argument that a registry
>| with 7,600 languages would be too large, and simultaneously
>| that it should instead support 20,000 languages, unles the
>| object is to do away with the registry altogether

Your comment is very interesting as it implies positions I have not, 
and is insultring, on the ground of an obvious typo I appologized 
for. Some could say that you could be biased :-)

"Be happy when you are gratuitly insulted, either you are stupid or right".
take care.
jfc



>It's exactly the same line of arguments where he attacks the
>registry for its size, and simultaneously proposes to add
>descriptions in - hard to tell - "more" languages.
>
>Some supported the latter, and they were not worried about
>the size.  A majority decided that French descriptions are
>not really better than English names, and that we're not
>creating a dictionary.  Both are honest positions.
>
>But one participant wanted both, that was IMNSHO dishonest,
>and just another attempt to collect points for his appeal.
>
>                          Bye, Frank
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru