(response to) comments on the draft...
Addison Phillips [wM]
aphillips at webmethods.com
Sat Jun 12 17:45:34 CEST 2004
Thanks for the note.
Mark and I have crafted a response on the extensions issue, which awaits final blessing from one of us. You will have that shortly.
I will note that your question here suggests that we envision a new protocol that uses language tags, as opposed to extending language tags as used in their current range of protocols so that they can contain additional language-related information. Neither Mark nor I necessarily envision a new protocol I think.
Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: 2004年6月12日 8:36
> To: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: (response to) comments on the draft...
> > From: Addison Phillips [wM] [mailto:aphillips at webmethods.com]
> > Some changes have been made to the editor's draft
> Well done. I reviewed changes that were made, and could not detect in
> the revised wording where concerns might have existed previously.
> You have not yet responded to my comments / questions regarding the
> extension mechanism (which I raised several months ago, btw). I would
> appreciate that.
> Are there anticipated future protocols this is being created for? If so,
> why is every process or protocol that will use this RFC to be required
> to support mechanisms used by distinct protocols that lie outside this
> RFC, rather than defining the mechanisms in those derivative protocols?
> Peter Constable
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages