Status of zh-* proposals

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 20:02 09/03/2005, James Seng wrote:
>JFC,
>Given you have more concerns over the politics of the encoding then the 
>technical facts behind it, let me remind you that
>(a) Chinese is one of the official national language in Singapore
>(b) I am currently the SC2, WG2 representative for Singapore
>
>Consider the political consequences in your note below to Michael to 
>suggest I am not qualified to discuss Chinese language tags and that 
>Singapore has no legitimate concerns over one of the our national language.

Dear James,
I will not consider your rudeness. I certainly agree with your two points 
since this is exactly what I ask (in a private mail made public) for China. 
I am not sure I ever talked of Singapore but if I did hurt your patriotic 
feelings I certainly apologize. I would certainly protest the same if the 
Chinese of Singapore was discussed and you would not be involved.

RFC 3066 is here to patch the possible lacks in two or three ISO lists 
(languages, script, countries). This is useful when one need to use them, 
the way we want. To think one can go further and standardize which 
aggregation is permitted or not, and why, is simply ... amazing.

I am sorry but I tend to think that elected governments, cultural 
authorities, teachers and lovers of  their 7260 own languages are more 
competent to know and document their language and legitmate to discuss and 
"tag" them - as you do for yours - than a score of people, even if they are 
the 20 best lingusts in the world. Frankly, in the outside real world, no 
one believes this is possible.
jfc


>Don't bother to reply however - I dont expect one nor will I care for one. 
>But do consider these facts before you make similar comments in future.
>
>-James Seng
>
>>>At 05:31 +0100 2005-03-06, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>>>Dear Michael,
>>>>I did not want to say this on the public list, but I do not think it is 
>>>>a good idea for this list and for the IANA to ask James Seng to talk on 
>>>>behalf of China. Nor to register Microsoft as the Referent of the 
>>>>Chinese languages in the IANA tables. I even feel both are highly inapropriate.
>>>
>>>I am not interested in your extremist views. IANA asks nothing of James 
>>>Seng. I suggest to Peter and Mark that they bring him in on it because 
>>>he is an expert in IDN whose opinion we trust.
>>
>>Your qualification of "my views" helps better understanding why my 
>>conditional support to the "RFC 3066bis" Draft was called 
>>"gerrymandering" and that my condition to consider the IDNs needs was 
>>qualified as "odious" by its authors.
>>
>>My suggestions (split of the Draft, creation of a dedicated IETF WG for 
>>its Internet standard related parts, serious analysis of the 
>>architectural implications of the multilingualization demanded by the ITU 
>>and WSIS unanimous resolutions for years, involvement of the national 
>>Registries, consideration of the programing aspects - starting with IDNA) 
>>are what the authors, the IESG and yourself are now following. A 
>>procedural consensus I can only applaud.
>>
>>I know you only consider the linguistic aspect of the IBM's and 
>>Microsoft's Chinese language registration requests. But a IANA 
>>registration is a technical issue which affects all the programs going to 
>>use it, and by consequence all the users of that programs (protocols, 
>>browsers, word processors, grammatical correctors, optical readers, 
>>typesetters, spell checkers, computer-synthesized speech, braille [RFC 
>>3066], etc. etc.). Everyone understand the tremendous impact they may 
>>have on national cultures, economies, sovereignties, social cohesions. 
>>They should only be made by language authorities (I am not the one who 
>>decided registrations should have a registrant and a documentation of 
>>reference -  what is not the case in ISO 639, ISO 3166, ISO 15924 which 
>>do not meet the resulting problems we face).
>>
>>>>I gave you the list of the ccTLD Managers for the countries IBM and 
>>>>Microsoft want to be the Referent of the language. I can only repeat my 
>>>>strong advise that you contact their ccTLD Managers first, as the IESG 
>>>>registration adviser for the IANA language tag registry. By courtesy 
>>>>and out of respect for their national sovereignty and for the authority 
>>>>as the trustee of their local communities.
>>>
>>>I have no intention of fulfilling my role in any way other than it is 
>>>specified in the RFC.
>>
>>I am sorry, but RFC 3066 refers to the ietf-languages at iana.org mailing 
>>list. As the header of this mail shows it, there is not such a list, but 
>>a reroute of the ietf-languages at alvestrand.no mailing list where 
>>participants are to subscribe. This list is not advertised on the IANA 
>>site, nor managed by the IANA. It therefore has not the exposure required 
>>by RFC 3066, nor the resulting IANA authority. IMHO here is the real root 
>>of our disagreement. Let respect RFC 3066.
>>
>>RFCs are coherent together. Please read RFC 1591 about the NIC being the 
>>trustee of the Local Internet Community. Please read the RFC 3869 where 
>>IAB calls on the financial help of Governments for Internet R&D. Also the 
>>ICANN ICP-1 document and the contract/MoU ICANN proposes to ccTLDs. The 
>>Internet is the adherence to the Internet standards, our contributions in 
>>getting everyone concerned involved should help this adherence not to 
>>compromise its stability.
>>
>>jfc
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ietf-languages mailing list
>>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages