language tag structure

[Michael Everson]

Jefsey. Don't write to me privately.

At 23:50 +0100 2005-01-17, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>Michael,
>either you are a political activist and I respect your agenda but I 
>strongly disagree with it. Or you are an engineer and I do not 
>understand you.

Neither, thank you. I am an alphabetician and linguist. My agenda 
(with regard to those functions) is to encode the world's writing 
systems and help with what linguistic expertise I have.

>For thirty years the "Internuts" have defined the Internet standard 
>process. I am not one of them, their result is not perfect, but it 
>produced the Internet and I respect it a lot, and all the experience 
>they have accumulated. What is upseting is the way you despise it so 
>much. Do you think you know so better than them in their area?

I'm not at all interested in this discussion.

>On 21:08 17/01/2005, Michael Everson said:
>>At 13:45 +0100 2005-01-17, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>>In here I do not consider only the ISO scripts list,
>>Then you are badly mistaken about what "script" means.
>
>No. We have two different visions. I respect yours and I understand 
>it. You do not mine and you do not try to understand it.

I really don't care what you think script is. Script, as defined in 
ISO 15924, is used in RFC 3066 and its successor. That, and nothing 
else, is what we, on this list, are using with RFC 3066 and its 
successor.

>>>but the real way networked life will consider them as vernacular 
>>>vehicles, including barcodes, RFIDs, voice, menus, scanerised 
>>>handwriting, etc.
>>Out of scope.
>
>Out of your scope. Yes.

Out of the scope of this endeavour.

>>>Does "script" covers all this? Thank you.
>>See http://www.unicode.org/iso15924
>>>The RFC 3066bis does not exist yet and will likely not exist.
>>
>>Oh, no. No, no no. We have not been discussing something that does 
>>not exist for the past year. Tell me it wasn't a bad dream.....
>
>Your dream yes. There is no RFC 3066 bis.

Bollocks.

>There is a Draft-Philips-languages-08/09.txt. There will be no RFC 
>if it is not accepted by the IESG - and I suppose there will be an 
>appeal by several Govs should it be accepted.
>
>You have to realise that despising the IETF, the IANA the way you 
>do, will not attract support.

I'm not at all interested in this discussion.

>What I do not understand is why you took that line of conduct? Can't 
>you accept that the IESG is not political but technical. I fully 
>understand that ISO is descriptive. But do you understand that IETF 
>is not? IETF does not decides. It only tries to understand and 
>organize systems that work.

I'm not at all interested in this discussion.

Is that clear? I am an alphabetician and linguist. My agenda (with 
regard to those functions) is to encode the world's writing systems 
and help with what linguistic expertise I have.

Please don't feel that you have to respond to this.
-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com