language tag structure

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 08:36 18/01/2005, Doug Ewell said:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> 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.
>
>Please take some time to figure out the difference between a comment
>that is directed at your words or your concepts, and one that is
>personal or "ad hominem."

Dear Doug,
I apologize. Please accept I receive some aggressive mails. This is 
sometimes confusing.

>Regardless of what I may have felt, I have
>tried to be careful to respond only to your comments about your new
>language tagging model and about RFC 3066bis.  (No, I will not stop
>calling it that; it is a perfectly acceptable shorthand term for the
>draft, and does not imply that I consider it an approved RFC.)

I comment this in another response. This leads this "string" to be used in 
outside documents. Since writing an RFC 3066bis document is not an IESG 
chartered task, this usage is confusing.

>I don't believe anything I have said can be considered political in any
>way.  If you think I have tried to advance a "political agenda," please
>quote the passage;
>And I said that IF your responses to John and Michael and John and Peter
>were intended as a caricature of the RFC 3066bis process, then that
>caricature was not appreciated.  Nothing about Jefsey the person.  If
>your responses were NOT intended that way, then what I said does not
>apply.

OK. Even.

>It should be noted that people *have* been offering criticisms of your
>model, and those criticisms may not necessarily reflect all the
>objections they may have.  Considering that there is no draft or Web
>page describing your model in detail, that's hardly surprising.  But you
>have responded to each critique by asserting that each writer approves
>of every aspect of your model except the one or two details he
>mentioned.  That's not realistic.  You may lull yourself into thinking
>there is much more support for your tagging scheme than actually exists.

I am afraid this is not what I say. I am sorry if this is confusing. Let 
take its mathematics.

- the group wants A
- I want also B the group does not want to consider
- I adopt a C approach I think be == B + A
- so I check if the group accepts that C supports all the A they want.
- the only responses I get are comments on B but not an A
- I say B is open but should be discussed on another list since this list 
does not want it
- and I can certainly say that I have no indication that A is not supported 
by C.

I do not think one can document this more. So I will not come back on this.

>Can you please indicate, in specific terms, a realistic user-level
>scenario that requires different tagging for my style of English and
>yours, or (to use your example) one that requires different tagging for
>the French used in Web services written using Apple, Unix, and Microsoft
>technologies?  What goals will be achieved by tagging these differently?
>I'm keeping my mind open, but please be specific.

OK.

Let assume that a CRC (Common Reference Center) and an SMTP OPES are 
attached to this list. On this CRC we can all attach our own reference 
context data and the context data of the mailing list (whatever the format, 
for example registered as "fr-latn-fra-n-jefsey", "en-latn-us-n-jefsey", 
"en-us-latn-*-list"). You can also register yourself on the OPES machine as 
"en-latn-us-o-ewell".

Now let assume I send a mail to the list. The SMTP OPES will filter this 
mail for you. It will use the different tags to know what to do. He will 
know your background and you want to use the style "o" - for example as an 
old member and your context is American. While I am a new comer on the list.

Some of the provided services could be:
- to add an IRI to all the words I could use I have listed in my context - 
in taking into account that I am a new comer and you are an old timer-  to 
permit you to understand what I mean when I write "script" for example. May 
be when
- to translate and document the words I could quote in French.
When you respond, the SMTP OPES can embed translation of your specific 
words, with an URL to a French explanation.

You will note that the list is in "en-latn-us" and in most of the case has 
no problem to default to "en". Obviously some other tags could be used to 
define the alarm you want to ring when you receive a mail, whatever the 
public corebox/telecenter you are using. The script can be "music", the 
language "en" and the country "US": you can have "Star & Stripes" plaid 
when I send you "ringing" and "la Madelon"  when you receive "appel" etc.

jfc