IETF language tags list
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Jun 14 00:35:42 CEST 2005
At 18:50 13/06/2005, Michael Everson wrote:
>For the record, I consider the attack about "layer violation" to be yet
>another example of the venom I referred to earlier.
I know you are not a programer so I understand you do not understand what
this really means. This is the same as saying that the Internet is an
unreliable technology. This is just a description. But since you feel hurt
and are yourself hurting, I will explain. Sorry if it is technical, after
all this is the real core of our disagreement, may be detailing it that
deep will help?
When you consider a language in ISO 639-1, 2, 3 (what this list works on),
it is a concept (we both understand what it is, not a computer). That
concept can be documented, for explanation, by one or two references
(books, articles, etc.). Again this is what this list does.
Now, when you start considering a substantial number of books (as advised
to Karen), the purpose is to verify if there are several instantiation of
the language, if it is a dialect, etc. (please let not to confuse with the
application "I had a dream" quoted by Mark of the Luther King's American
language instantiation).
When you directly relate concepts with values you have by nature a layer
violation (like if I entered "Michael Family-Name" in a base). It may not
be very apparent when you say "one-French in a Latin Script from France":
but if you think "French" instead of "one French" it is a layer violation
and sooner or later attached relations will openly conflict. This is the
flaw in generalizing the debate on this list. I detail:
There is a difference of nature between English in ISO 639-X (concept) and
English in ISO 639-Y (value) if are retained ISO 639-4 guidelines similar
to the one we retained in complying with ISO 11179 and ISO 12620. Why ?
Because there may be many instantiations of English ISO 639-X, but what is
taken as English in ISO 639-Y might be what has positively retain by a
filter saying "if there are more than % 'the' tokens and % 'and' tokens
etc. this is English". As long as ISO 639-4 guidelines are not finalised we
frankly do not know where we go.
This means that "gsw" as future ISO 639-3 or "gsw" as registered today as
ISO 639-2 may turn to be different by nature. This is what I translated in
my mail telling Peter to give a degree of liberty to the installation of
the language (referent) and of the user's usage (style).This degree of
liberty is a different level (like in the DNS) and possibly layer (because
the precedent level is metadata to the next one).
This may look silly, but if you do not conduct that analysis carefully you
get yourself trapped into very complex situations. The Internet technology
is made of many layer violations due to its current use of default
architecture parameters (one single name system, one single adressing, one
single IANA, one single class, one single character space, etc.). This
hides them. The complexity of a Multilingual Internet broadly lies in this.
Just consider Classes. One of the reasons I am tough on langtags is that
langtags should make Multilingual Internet classes: the DNS can support
56.000+ classes, so there is room but not enough for all the langtags this
list _could_ register. There will also be probably many demands for
non-lingual classes (security, priorities, public services, corporate,
cultures, family protection etc.). We are going to negotiate class
allocation: this will be up to this list and we will have to take into
account what has been registered. A possible nightmare.
Let me say I register "i-gsw". You will probably have to agree. Now I will
ask you its registration number, you will be puzzled but I will eventually
get one from IANA. And I will then make a BCP informing the Internet
community that I will run an Swiss German externet based upon that class
number to avoid conflicts with the Chinese externets CNNIC could start
using the tags you registered for Mike (who will be worried as he may lose
a bigger opportunity than he thought). Anyway, I would have carried
everything according to every RFC present and proposed. So would have
others. Yet we would have created a mess. Because the underlying concepts
are in layer violation. No one has considered classes, ... yet. Except John
Klensin (but only one for all the langtags ...) and ICANN four years ago,
and Bob Tréhin and Joe Rinde to establish the first international system,
OSI copied as CUGs and we are working on now.
I know this is complex. But it is not hurting, it is not "venom", it is the
very core of this list's mission and the reason why I say that it should be
presented on the IANA site with the name and the exposure resulting from
RFC 3066. And a network architect to advise you (not from the IESG as for
the time being they have totally overlooked the problem). To better
analysis this you can read ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3597.txt
jfc
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list