Timetable for action: May 31 is suggested

[Peter_Constable at sil.org]

Tex Texin wrote on 05/27/2003 10:40:29 AM:

> c) actually es-americas wasn't formally rejected as much as the
discussion was
> allowed to die out (after much more than 2 weeks if I recall correctly)
and
> its proponents gave up.

After the Reviewer made it clear repeatedly that he had no intention of
approving this.



> d) To my mind, the fact that es-americas was not accepted is indicative
of why
> the current approach is faulty and a new framework should be adopted.
> Michael made clear that the registry is about providing tags for
languages,
> and only by determining that a language exists and needs a tag according
to
> LINGUISTIC standards, would a tag be granted. The software industry has
needs
> that do not align with linguistic standards, es-americas being one of
them.
> Therefore the software industry should ideally have a separate tag
registry
> (and/or production rules) that is aligned with software requirements.

It's been my impression that this RFC should be guided by purely linguistic
standards, but ultimately exists to serve the needs of IT.



> e) wedging scripts into languages is kind of a hack. Having it will help
some
> applications and likely be confusing for others.

I think that's overstated. As you know, I wrote a paper over a year ago
looking at a coherent conceptual model of ontological categories that
combine both language proper and also written expression of language. There
are issues inherent to language (and writing) as a phenomenon that mean
that a complete system based on explicit and consistently applied
principles is a bit of a pipe dream -- it's always going to have messy
bits; but I attempted in that paper to suggest that we can come up with a
model that can be applied with *enough* consistency and principled
underpinnings to be workable and practical. Peter Edberg felt I had
succeded in doing that, and built on what I had done to try to move us
closer to actually implementing a system by extending RFC 3066.




> this discussion could take a few more weeks
> without incurring major harm to the industry and the proponents could be
a bit
> more patient. At the same time, there perhaps shouldn't be delay for
delays
> sake, and if there are legitimate objections to consider, they need to be
> articulated. If it will take time to formulate those objections, we
perhaps
> need an estimate of how long it would take. So for example, and not to
put
> words in his mouth, if Michael or others need time to consider the
proposal
> and the 2 week schedule is not sufficient, it would not be unreasonable
to say
> this issue will take n weeks, to give time to all parties to respond.
> At least then, the clamoring for appeal etc. might die down and we could
just
> focus on the proposal, knowing at the end of the period a decision would
> result.

IMO, Michael should act one way or another: either approve Mark's requests
(with all -- I think -- of the individuals from whom he had explicitly
asked for nods of the head having done so); or he should explicitly reject
Mark's request and explain what plan of action he wants to see pursued. I
can understand John, Mark, Addison and others being frustrated by the
current limbo.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485