Peter, I am sad for you for your afflicting comments. At 17:35 12/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end users
I explained several times how inapropriate is the term "end user" in an end to end distributed architecture. In the context of your remarks it shows you categorise the users of IETF deliverables, and discriminate their access to a common information on the base of their language. I do not want to use big words, but this is a patent violation of Human Rights. As is the whole langtag concept for that reason.
<snip>That a Microsoft expert deliberately ignores the non-ascii development environments (of his clients) to justify a document, is afflicting.
BTW, the *only* suggestion that "'intelligent people' use ascii compatible keyboards" has originated with the author of these comments.
The terms "intelligent people" is a terminology of the draft 11.txt (00.txt). I ask if the authors' wording implies their intelligent people (whatever they may mean by that) use ascii compatible keyboards? Please does not reverse the suggestion: in my country it qualifies as a criminal offense. I suppose it is the case in the other countries applying the UN Declaration on Human Rights. It is advisable that IETF documents start correcting their lingual discrimination.
You may not know that, I was a GNSO candidate at the ICANN BoD in 9/2001 to campaign against the lingual divide. It lead to a ccTLD resolution at the Montevideo meeting. FYI it was also to campaign against the concentration of root servers in the USA. When I made my public speach on 9/8, I was laughed at and teased, the same I am here. For the same reason: experts hates being said the obvious because they should have seen it - beati pauperes spiritu. 3 days later on, one root server disapeared in the WTC. The WSIS picked that point in its resolutions. Today there are more than 70 servers around the world - beati pauperes partly won [the file is still the NTIA file on the RSSAC ones but on a few others it is already my approach ...]). Humility and open mind leads to obvious, obvious wins at the end of the day. It is a very simple, sometimes slow when you have many experts, but a secure rule. You can trust it.
I fully realise that this WG is unwillingly a RFC 3774 show case, so I do not want it continue to delay the fix W3C so dearly waits for. I will not fight its possibly innapropriately hurting wording now: this is an issue with the RFC Editor who feels concerned and will increasingly feel concerned with the comming WSIS resolutions on the issue. And I do not seen any document published before a long, to take into account Warsaw results, etc..
But, I thank you not to add to it. I am sorry: WG management and aggresiveness against me, logic contradictions, etc. will not make me to call on ADs or IESG or upset me. But this kind of discriminatory words, might.
Please, let have Addison close his Draft, lose the IESG or IETF Last Call, ISO 639-4 finalised, this WG review its Charter, build a road-map, produce a Framework also respecting the ISO underscore format and the XML separated "script, region indications" format and many others, let dig into a few concepts about language as human computer sharable relation protocols, fix the conflict with charsets declarations, get the text copied around and endorsed by concerned communities and made an RFC, may be give me time enough to mess it with CRC Canonical Interface Grids, so we can eventually have the XML support of BCP 47 documented as an RFC before XML is replaced by ASN.2.
This is up to you. I will wait. But stop discriminating. Thank you! jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.