Archaic scripts

[LB]

> it sounds like you are saying
>  that it is difficult for individuals or small organizations to be
>  heard, if the larger organizations are so focussed on themselves. I'm
>  not really sure how to alleviate that problem, but it's great that
>  this mailing list is open, so that everyone may be more aware of all
>  the different points of view.

This is true. But there is still a problem of culture and priority. We
are exploring an idea that is the ethitechnics. That is to design
things so that their application is ethics, not only technoethique
which is to use things ethically.
>
>  >  The question remains. You say you're looking for interoperability.
>  >  With whom. With the World normalcy (ie normative documents or policies
>  >  global agreements) or with other local or private standards?
>
>  Generally, I am interested in interoperability between pieces of
>  software that are distributed in a network. (I am also interested in
>  human-to-human communication.) Software does not interoperate with
>  documents, policies and agreements. A piece of software interoperates
>  with a different piece of software, or, equally importantly, an older
>  version of itself. It's hard to write correct and efficient software.
>  If the documents are very complicated or do not have any basis in
>  implementable/implemented software, implementors will ignore those
>  documents in the interests of shipping their product sooner.

Your vision and rough consensus are indeed a proposal for local and
short-term. For me interoperability is the first concern. A project
should not be interoperable with other projects, it must be in-itself
interoperable. Built for that. It must be possible to interoperate
with future projects which we know nothing.

To achieve this I think that a project must conform to the norm that
is the description of normality, which exists or that they want. The
standards are the way some, at some point want to meet the norm. Thus,
all standards are interoperable with respect to the same norm.

Otherwise there is no king and president, but Czars! The developer of
the first draft. In MLTF we are not numerous, but we immediately
understood - in the face of linguistic diversity - that JFC was right
in asking us to work in "multi-consensus", because there is no single
solution and yet it takes the various solutions to be interoperable.
With the rough consensus, there is only one solution?

Which makes me afraid is the difference between the IETF and the real
world where I discussed. I do not know ... You want to decide for
people, their languages and their scriptures. And if people do not
listen, if only because they do not understand you.

Just a small example: my local PC seller sells to 80% of computers
running XP, no more Vista.

Have a good evening.
Louis.

>
>  An early member of the IETF community once said:
>
>  "We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
>  We believe in: rough consensus and running code."
>
>  This is from Dave Clark, 24th IETF, 1992, slide 19, page 543 of:
>
>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/prior29/IETF24.pdf
>
>  I am sure Paul will let us know whether the IETF has strayed from this
>  principle.
>
>  Erik
>
>
>
>  >  Best regards
>  >  Louis Blériot
>  >
>  >  2008/5/9 Erik van der Poel <erikv at google.com>:
>  >
>  >
>  > > We are only trying to maintain or achieve interoperability. If we
>  >  > cannot get the representatives of the bigger players to agree, then
>  >  > it's hard to achieve interoperability, right? Sorry if some of my
>  >  > wording is deemed arrogant -- I'm just an engineer with ideas for
>  >  > interoperability.
>  >  >
>  >  > Erik
>  >  >
>  >  > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:23 AM, LB <lbleriot at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >> do I risk a question? Who decides? It is the IETF or are the
>  >  >> manufacturers? I do not understand qu'IE7 fails to comply with the
>  >  >> RFCs. It seems that Firefox also has its own policy. This resembles
>  >  >> the Minitel during 1980. To know the protocol you must disassemble the
>  >  >> code. Why would I not have the right to use domain names encrypted in
>  >  >> cuneiform? Why would I not have the right to create my own writing? I
>  >  >> do not want to be offensive, but as a non-Anglo-Saxon and non-engineer
>  >  >> I begin to resent what some call the "Global Arrogance": is this
>  >  >> really what you want? Why not proceed methodically and normally. That
>  >  >> is to say: define the service to be provided, specifications, levels
>  >  >> of operating conditions (ROM, browsers, applications), obligations of
>  >  >> interoperability, long terms development prospects, work on modeling
>  >  >> (object system , exotèem). What you define is an artifact to be
>  >  >> central to life in the world with a life span of several centuries.
>  >  >> This is not a negotiation between Google, Micorosoft and Firefox.
>  >  >>
>  >  >> I am puzzled.
>  >  >> --
>  >  >> LB
>  >  >>
>  >  >> 2008/5/9 Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>:
>  >  >>> Agreed pretty much.  Sorry I haven't followed the recommendations for the
>  >  >>> casing, etc. rules, however disambiguating the  mapping and
>  >  >>> Unicode<->Punycode rules from the disallowed set would "solve" (some of) the
>  >  >>> problems that cause IE7 to not look up unassigned characters.
>  >  >>> -          Shawn
>  >  >> _______________________________________________
>  >  >> Idna-update mailing list
>  >  >> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>  >  >> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>  >  >>
>  >  >
>  >
>