Swiss german, spoken

[Addison Phillips]

There is a working group (LTRU): you have not deigned to work with it.

You have no solution or cannot demonstrate one, and, if you do, this is not the place for it, LTRU is.

I'll not further respond to this tripe on this list.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com]
> Sent: 2005?6?13? 9:19
> To: Peter Constable; Addison Phillips
> Cc: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: Swiss german, spoken
> 
> At 16:55 13/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> >Correction: 639-3 has not yet advanced to the FDIS (final draft int'l
> >standard) stage. It is currently under ballot as DIS, which ballot
> >period closes in a few weeks. If approved without a large number of
> >technical comments (which I anticipate), it will be submitted for FDIS
> >ballot, but if not approved or if there are many comments requesting
> >technical changes, then it could remain at the DIS stage.
> 
> At 16:56 13/06/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
> >Peter wrote:
> > > It is *not* the case
> > > that we don't want what she's asking for,
> >Yep. Quite the contrary, we want *exactly* what she's asking for. It is
> >merely a question of timing.
> 
> I am glad of these two mails. They illustrates again the problem we face:
> we agree, but that your solution set is shaky and ours is not ready. So,
> we
> would be better off in cooperating and/or in getting assistance from Govs,
> as per RFC 3869 and WSIS consensus.
> jfc
> 
> PS. Some remarks to Peter if it may help.
> 
> 1. archives about TJ/CN registrations are open to all.
> 2. IMHO the main problem of ISO 639-3 you will face is the duplicates with
> ISO 639-4. They may unnecessarily delay both. You should clarify.
> 3. you say in another mail "For some reason, you seem to think your
> inability is laudable while my same inability is short-sighted and
> attempting to by-pass rules." Our common inability comes from your
> approach
> which has some pros for you. What is laudable is to propose a way out you
> could accept, what is short-sighted is to refuse to consider it. All the
> more than I think my approach is fully respectfull of yours and gives you
> many descriptive pluses, while offering a full spectrum of possibilities
> to
> quantified/normative aspects.
> 
> I first thought we could address your issue at Internet level and I
> proposed a solution. I then saw better the picture and the only solution
> is
> to go by the book when it exists already and to dialog over real
> application when it is not. Keeping confusing issues, concepts and values,
> exceptions and standards, descriptive and normative elements,
> instantiation, version and application, etc. will lead to no where serious.
> For six months I tell you to proceed by the book, step by step, without
> wanting to swallow the world and me one shot. We deal with registries and
> want to add script information on the Internet side. By the book it means:
> ISO 11179 and charsets. From there on one can tune. Ignoring them is
> creating a flood of conflicts.