The Linguasphere proposal is suited to RFC 3066 (or its successors)
and its consuming protocols -- [YES/NO]
Misha Wolf
Misha.Wolf at reuters.com
Fri Jun 4 21:21:43 CEST 2004
I'd like to carry out an experiment and hope the list moderator
doesn't object. This is based on a system Michael Sperberg-McQueen
used with the W3C XML Schema WG. The WG had a vast number of
members and lots of decisions to make. Sometimes email ballots
were used, with the question and the vote both placed in the
Subject line for automated processing. I seem to recall that the
idea was that there was no need to read the mail itself, as the
only relevant information was in the Subject line.
If you agree with this experiment and have an opinion, please reply
to this mail, deleting either the "YES" or the "NO" from the Subject
line.
If you agree with this experiment and do not have an opinion, please
skip to the next mail in your Inbox.
If you do not agree with this experiment and want to write a mail
saying that it is a load of nonsense, please leave both the "YES"
and the "NO" in place.
Thanks
Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Product and Platform Architecture Group
Reuters Limited
-----Original Message-----
From: Misha Wolf
Sent: 04 June 2004 19:47
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: Linguasphere -- An appeal for clarity
Can we have a straw poll re Q2 ...?
Does anyone here consider the Linguasphere stuff to be suited
to RFC 3066* and its consuming protocols?
* or its successors
Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Product and Platform Architecture Group
Reuters Limited
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Peter
Constable
Sent: 04 June 2004 19:41
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: RE: Linguasphere -- An appeal for clarity
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Misha Wolf
> Please can we keep separate the discussions...
[in a subsequent message]
> Reading the various mails, I feel that people are
> arguing at cross-purposes.
Debbie has made comments on this list suggesting positive answers for
both questions. As I'm concerned about what happens re Q2 but also about
how this community perceives what's happening in the ISO arena (Q1 --
e.g. Harald's response to DG's message expressing concern by *too much*
activity related to ISO 639), I felt it was appropriate to put both
issues into appropriate context.
Re Q1, I have said that, at this time, the project Debbie is referring
to is not an ISO project, and that needs analysis has not been provided.
Re Q2, I have said that needs analysis has not been provided, and that I
am inclined to think a huge codeset at the level of granularity proposed
would not be a good thing for a successor of RFC 3066 and its consuming
protocols.
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
--------------------------------------------------------------- -
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list