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