language tag structure

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin jefsey at
Tue Jan 18 00:52:34 CET 2005

At 22:53 17/01/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>If this is supposed to be some kind of sarcastic caricature of the process 
>used by the supporters of RFC 3066bis, it is not constructive and it is 
>not appreciated.

No. And I do regret this hurting remark.

This "ietf-language at" mailing list has made a complex private 
Internet standard process "BCP" Draft. It does not address all language 
related tagging needs. I therefore prepare a document for information one 
the way we will have addressed them all, once they have stabilized and been 
demonstrated. I will also engage a BCP 025 process for a WG-Tags to be 
created in order to address the information tagging needs in a consistent way.

The purpose of my mail was to make sure no one saw a problem with the parts 
which wants to address the needs discussed on this list. I have no reason 
to suppose the responses I received were not loyal and genuine. They have 
discussed parts for being outside of the scope of their draft what was not 
the question. They have not discussed parts in their own scope.

I just wander how long will it take for some to understand that 
"gerrymandering", "odious", "demands", "is not appreciated", ad hominems, 
political agendas are not the best way to get adherence and to reach a 
consensus. The ultimate judgement of an IETF document is to be accepted by 
the users.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list