Swiss German, spoken
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Jun 13 14:32:28 CEST 2005
On 06:43 13/06/2005, Peter Constable said:
>The *only* reason that there is an issue with registering what Karen has
>asked for in the case of "gsw" is that we are in a transitional stage.
>She *could* register "i-gsw", but we know now that in a years time or so
>"gsw" will probably be provided under the terms of an anticipated RFC
we all agree that this is a transitional stage, but towards what? You
confuse your proposition with a certitude (this is not "probably",
but "possibly"). As long as the transition stay within classification, I
can only object when you by-pass the rules for you (TJ/CN) and embarrass
Karen. When you make it de facto normative you trespasses your scope.
I proposed the way to make everyone happy: to include a degree of liberty
to the language (I named the referent) and another one to the user (I named
it the style).
>If you were paying attention, Mr. Morfin, you would see that what is
>happening is advising so as to avoid conflicts. It is *not* the case
>that we don't want what she's asking for, nor is it the case that don't
>understand what she's asking for or why she needs it. It is *not* the
>case that we don't know how to provide what she's asking for; it is only
>a matter that all the infrastructure we anticipate for doing it is not
I understand what you try for a few years. I regret you do not want to hear
what we are doing. We will support you as long as you stay within the scope
of your proposition. I said that to Hjulstad in Paris. This is true both at
ISO and in here.
Now, here you are reasoning about possible situations. IMHO you reasoning
is flawed because you confuse models and metamodels. I know ISO 12620 and
11179 are not exciting reading and not finished yet too. But generalisation
without staying consistent with them is building structural conflicts. I am
not a linguist. I am an engineer and a network architect. I am interested
in models, logic and interactive systems. Your logic is acceptable as long
as you stay in concepts (what is OK for your typographers/publisher ISO
639-3 area). But beyond this is layer violation. I am sure there are US
people able to help you read and understand ISO 11179.
I fully agree we are in a difficult situation since neither your
infrastructure nor our is yet finished. This is why I suggest we cooperate
and accept to start from standards which have already been established. Not
to create new conflicts. Also why I suggest that we start from your current
positions (Draft 3066, ISO 639-3 parts pasted in ISO 639-4) and edit them
to contain them into their own area.
>Please stop raising alarm bells when there is no fire.
I suggest you document what would be your best whole procedure: IESG said
that this list will be revamped by the Draft, I suppose it is normal that
it documents the best way for her to operate. I add that as soon as gsw
spoken would be registered, I will want it to be registered for signs in
France - not as Alsatian - (multilingual, multimodal, multimedia,
multitechnology, multinational versatility is of the essence to what we
More information about the Ietf-languages