draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, and extensions

[Michael Everson]

Dear colleagues,

I can see that I have not been wrong deleting this thread unread. I 
don't know what Mr Morfin's problem is, and John's responses suggest 
to me that I oughtn't care.

Please publish the new RFC soon so we can Get On With It.
Try to get it a number that ends in -66.

Your Language Tag Reviewer,
ME

At 07:16 -0500 2005-01-05, John Cowan wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:
>
>>  your draft is not controverted for bettering RFC 3066 but for not
>  > bettering it enough, in an interapplication concerted way, for the
>  > standard you want your draft to become.
>
>The intent is that the draft become a BCP replacing RFC 3066 (also a BCP),
>not an Internet Standard.
>
>>  There are even *strong* political
>  > (Governmental) oppositions. I document this below.
>
>Which governments object, and where?
>
>>  And you refuse to discuss it.
>
>That is a canard.  We have done our best to meet all objections fairly.
>
>>  We supported you. I still do provided your Draft only claim to be an
>  > extension of RFC 3066, for the applications wishing to use it, since
>  > several say it cannot be an RFC for Information.
>
>What do you mean by "extension of RFC 3066".  RFCs are not "extended";
>they are updated or obsoleted.  The intention is to obsolete RFC 3066
>(BCP 47) and create a new BCP 47.  BCPs are not Internet Standards.
>
>>  The document confusion and paucity are too important for the world, for the
>  > IETF and for my 27 years long fight for the users, for me to accept it to
>  > be an Internet standard.
>
>There is no intention to make the draft an Internet Standard.
>
>>  4. a group of private specialists proposes to get accepted by the IESG a
>  > replacement of the RFC 3066.
>
>The same "group of private specialists" that proposed, wrote, and got
>IESG approval for RFC 3066, and has been administering it for the last
>four years.  Indeed, the same group that proposed, wrote, and got
>approval for RFC 1766 and administered that from 1995 to 2001.
>
>>  It adds the consideration of the scripting
>  > together with the language and the country.
>
>Many tags with script information were registered under RFC 3066 and
>are in use today.  The new draft simply allows ISO 15924 script tags
>to be used freely in a disciplined fashion and compatibly with their
>existing uses under RFC 3066.
>
>>  It adds more stringent registration rules for the language tags
>
>No more or less stringent than under RFC 3066: discussion on
>ietf-languages at iana.org, approval by the Language (Sub)Tag Reviewer,
>and registration by IANA.
>
>>  and wants to be the Internet standard to designate languages.
>
>The draft does not propose an Internet Standard.
>
>>  This means that the resulting of
>>  directory of language will be the unique reference for the Internet.
>
>No more and no less so than the current IANA registry at
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-tags .
>
>>  5. the Last Call debate has shown that the authors want only to consider
>>  a unique language tag to be registered for the national written
>>  expression of a language, without adding the possibility to document
>>  their various usage and their documenting authorities.
>
>That is simply false.
>
>>  This means there
>>  will be a single Internet scripted language per country in Search
>>  Engines, Web Pages, Domain Names, Web Services, on-line literature,
>>  e-learning, e-commerce, e-government, protocols, technical translations,
>>  etc.
>
>This is patent nonsense, since the draft does not prohibit anything that
>RFC 3066 allows.
>
>>  6. I explained that we work (AFRAC, an experimental national reference
>>  center) on the complimentary concepts of a Multilingualism ontology
>>  considering scripting and vocal language instantiations, their
>>  descriptors list, semantic, filtering algorithms and possible
>>  authoritative cultural intergovernance. That we supported the effort
>>  engaged by the author of the draft but found their text premature as a
>>  projected standard.
>
>The draft does not propose an Internet Standard.
>
>  > - there is at least two Internet scriptings : upper/lower case and case
>>  indifferent. Are they supported?
>
>This is incomprehensible.  Language tags under the draft are case-insensitive,
>as they always have been under RFCs 3066 and 1766.
>
>>  - there is different character sets: scientific language includes Greek
>>  characters, administrative do not. how do they address that?
>
>The draft addresses languages, not character sets.
>
>>  - is it compatible with the IDNs tables which will already designate the
>>  Web page access and be used in its links?
>
>If RFC 3066 is compatible, then so is this draft, since every RFC 3066
>language tag is permitted by this draft.
>
>>  - who is to register that unique definition of our national language?
>
>The draft does not define languages, only a method of tagging them.
>
>>  - if this was true, this definition should result from a comprehensive
>>  law describing the authorized variations?
>
>The draft does not define languages.  Very few languages have a legal
>definition of any sort: English does not, for example.
>
>>  - what are the technical alternatives to this sovereignty violation?
>
>There is no violation of anyone's sovereignty here.
>
>>  - if this was a standard, its paucity will lead to patented application
>>  additions. Language standard must be comprehensive and free.
>
>The draft does not propose a standard of any sort.
>
>>  - scripts, cultures and dialects born and die everywhere everyday, they
>>  also are oral. 20.000 dialects are known. Are they supported
>
>Yes, in potentia.  Names of dialects can be registered as language
>variants under the procedures given in the draft.
>
>>  - our work was fully supported and the idea of a rigid language
>>  description tag not accepted by any correspondents so far.
>
>RFC 3066 language tags are in wide use.
>
>--
>"Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child        John Cowan
>could understand this report.  Run out          jcowan at reutershealth.com
>and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>can't make head or tail out of it."             http://www.reutershealth.com
>         --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages