Language tags, the phillips draft, and procedures

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 00:33 09/01/2005, Mark Davis said:
>I believe that what Misha was trying to do with this message was not to try
>to pressure for special treatment in any way. Instead it was to address the
>issue voiced by some on this list, that "there is not much support" for
>3066bis. In fact there is a great deal of support; a large number of people,
>companies, and organizations are in favor of it. In particular, both the W3C
>and Unicode committees are strongly in favor. (And if the IETF wants
>official liaison statements to that effect, that could easily be
>forthcoming).

Dear Mark,
As expressed many times, I fully support the Draft too, provided (a) it is 
restricted to the areas where it is currently used, and further on to new 
areas only after being discussed new area per new area - what Addison 
refused (b) that registrations are carried in a standard IETF way through 
an IETF WG with an IAB appoved charter warranting network architecture 
consistency. Would this draft be accepted as a global BCP it would conflict 
with my own needs the way I understand them (but I may be wrong) if are not 
included in the tag: (a) the language usage framework (b) the language 
authoritative reference (so there may be as many tags for a same language, 
for a same scripting and for a same country as needed to cover the 
requirements/specifics of the concerned usages and parties).

As I indicated to Misha, what would really help would be a list of 
motivated support from IAB, Chairs of the IETF WGs from the different 
concerned areas, and non-English or non-American mother tongue involved 
network experts or authorities. Support from some leading persons of 
organizations or entities such as MINC, ITU, WSIS and UNESCO, from ETSI or 
GAC, from WTO and WIPO, would obviously help clarifying things a lot.

Again, I oppose nothing, but I do not want us to make a big mistake.
jfc