Here's what I have to say aboutthat?

Addison Phillips [wM] aphillips at
Tue May 27 09:12:49 CEST 2003

Michael Everson wrote:
>> If Mark doesn't get an answer when time runs out on this set of 
>> proposals he ought, in my opinion, appeal to the next higher level in 
>> the RFC just on general principles.
> Fine. I'm not doing the best I can, in your view. I should approve these 
> tags not because the questions regarding their use and structure are all 
> answered, but I should do it because John Clews says "Do it now and 
> deprecate later!" and because I'm being threatened with appeal and 
> possibly eventual sacking.

No, I'm not threatening you and don't mind if you continue to review 
tags. It is good to set the bar high: I'm not keen on having hundreds of 
exceptional tags to implement and keep track of.

I think you should approve these tags because the vast preponderance of 
list correspodents have urged you to do so and have presented compelling 
(to me) evidence that they should be approved.

I also think that, if you feel strongly that the technical or logistical 
criteria have not been met that, in your role as the reviewer you should 
reject the specific tags that didn't meet the standards and clearly 
state the reasons and possible remedial action (if any) for the 
rejection. This is in both the spirit and letter of the RFC. The next 
step would be to either rethink the proposals or address the remedial items.

To date you have neither approved nor rejected any tags.

> Well I'm NOT going to approve these while the *technical* issues 
> regarding syntax and possible combination with country codes exist. I 
> think it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE for me to ask (at least) Peter Edberg, 
> Mark Davis, Harald Alvestrand to come up with some kind of policy 
> regarding this.

The last time you gave a list of people you didn't accept their 
position. Also: since Mark isn't asking you for any tags with country 
codes, why is this an issue *now*? It would be reasonable to reject 
zh-hant-CN (or zh-CN-hant, if you prefer) for this reason, but not the 
nine in question.

It seems clear to me that having a policy on this issue will not 
necessarily result in your approving the tags, even if the policy will 
be useful in the future. Will you say what the complete collection of 
remaining criteria are?



Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods, Inc.

+1 408.962.5487  mailto:aphillips at
Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature.

Chair, W3C I18N WG Web Services Task Force

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list