LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 14:40 14/09/2005, John.Cowan wrote:
>We can and should adopt such tags as they are requested.  The evidence is
>that we are not buried in such requests.  Since the creation of RFC 1766
>ten and a half years ago, we have adopted only 92 tags (and rejected some
>undetermined, but small, number), mostly in batches.

Dear Doug,
Does that not surprise you? We all agree there is a big demand for 
language identification. Would not these 92 tags in 10 years just 
document the lack of demand is not for language identification but 
for the RFC 1766/3066/3066 bis form of tagging.

"Errare humanum est", but after 10 years "perseverare diabolicum".
The best way to walk is to walk on his own feet and to keep doing it. 
Problem is that one does not go that far, roughly 2.2% of tag a day.

At 15:55 14/09/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>--On 14. september 2005 13:29 +0200 Luc Pardon <lucp at skopos.be> wrote:
> > <skip>
>While I certainly hope the end is near for LTRU, there is an 
>inevitable delay involved - and if the IESG's decision is appealed, 
>there is the theoretical chance that implementation of the 
>procedures will be delayed further (I'd advise the IESG not to, but 
>that's another matter).

Common sense and consideration of users' needs is a better way to 
avoid appeals than trying to influence anyone.

Appeals will be because of the inadequacy of the non end to end 
interoperable non scalable proposed tagging solution (one tag no more 
than every month and a half demonstrate that, when linguasphere lists 
20.000 of them - 2.222 years at this list speed. Where is the problem?).

Appeals will not be against the entries proposed by Doug Ewell's 
Draft. Linking Doug's Draft to RFC 3066 bis is an unfair confusing trick.

Michael first opposed Microsoft's and IBM's requests over Chinese, 
Tajik etc. because they used the RFC 3066 bis format. Then he 
eventually accepting them. This means that Doug's Draft could 
technically be registered under the present directory (even if the 
size would be huge), and that the two Drafts are _not_ related.

All these requests could have been registered ten years ago. Should 
someone need them.

>>To answer the question: A wholesale registration of all possible
>>combinations would probably not be a bright idea, but if there is a need
>>for one particular tag and somebody asks, why not ?
>
>Agreed, on both counts.

It would seem normal that the ietf-languages at alvestrand.no mailing 
list which approved 9 entries per year until now and will approve the 
new entries in the futur, would approve the whole WG-ltru proposed 
registry list. Since there is a consensus on these entries, what is 
the problem in accepting them all?

There is no relation between the limitations of the proposed 
lang3tags and the capacity of its registry to fully support it in the 
cases where it can deliver.

jfc

PS. I suppose Harald will ban me from ietf-languages at alvestrand.no 
again for this mail. Again on the grounds this is a private mailing 
list where AD, IESG and IAB appeals do not exist. And call on RFC 
3683 against me because Google already technically supports all the 
propositions he does not want the IETF to support (even if they 
already are documented by RFC [URI-tags]).