RE: [Ltru] last response (was: character set considerations materialis contradictory)

["Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>]

> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org]
On Behalf Of JFC
> (Jefsey) Morfin

Mr. Morfin seems to have a penchant for misrepresentation when quoting
others.


> > > Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to
end
> > > users, and especially will not require them to type them in, and
since
> > > IT professionals building applications who may need to type these
in
> > > will almost certain have other reasons why they need to be able to
type
> > > a-z, I think this is not a concern that needs to be addressed in
this
> > > draft (no more than it being a concern e.g. for HTTP and countless
other
> > > specifications).


> - characterisation of application's "reasonability" as not exposing
> non-ASCII characters,

It has *never* been suggested that a reasonable application will not
expose non-ASCII characters; only that a reasonable application will not
normally expose protocol elements not intended for UI usage.


> - the concept of outcast "end users" who would have only a limited
access
> to IETF deliverables,

It has *never* been suggested that any group of end users are outcasts;
only that the immediate users of IETF deliverables are developers and IT
professionals who have different expectations and requirements than do
end users.


> - imprecise considerations such "will _almost_certain_" ignoring one
shot
> all the non-ASCII development environments,

It has *never* been suggested that non-ASCII development environments
can be ignored; only that it is a non-requirement to create a
language-tag specification that permits development in an ASCII-free
environment.
 


> I note that for three hundred years communications have known to build
> language/script independent protocols accessible to everyone and to
the
> reading of every lawmaker, Judge and Jury in every courts of the
world.

And I will note that the standards for communication upheld by any
lawmaker, judge, jury or court from the past three *thousand* years
would have rejected the kind of misrepresentation you practice. I find
this utterly reprehensible.



> Tired to blow in the violin of this mailing list, I went yesterday on
> records about the collective attitude of the affinity group leading
this WG
> to a consensus by exhaustion, making it an RFC 3774 show case. So, I
will
> not come back on the points I made. My censors will be able to go to
these
> two mails. All the more than everyone will suspect your repetition of
Peter
> Constable's quote and your wording were a bait on purpose, as a way to
> tackle my yesterday mail. Actually I take advantage of it to copy in
Bcc
> all those who did not believe it possible.

I can only hope that those who were blind copied, to whom I have no
opportunity of directly defending my statements, will simply read and
compare what I wrote with Mr. Morfin's interpretation, which very
plainly are incongruous.



> I expect that you will now ban me again for disrespect of the Chair,
> defending technical principles supporting the concepts of national
> sovereignty, facilitating international cooperation, cultural
empowerment
> and absolute respect of users' person, rights and equal opportunity
which
> are explicit or implicit core values of every SDO and of every postal
and
> communication architecture for centuries.
> 
> If you feel these values and objectives, which are my reason in life
for
> decades, are no part of the IETF vision I can only feel sorry for you.

You are most pitiable. Your values and objectives are thoroughly worthy,
but your judgment of where they need to be applied is misguided. The
elements of postal addresses are linguistic elements. That does not make
every element of every communications infrastructure a linguistic
element. Language tags are *not* linguistic elements; they are simply
abstract entities composed of characters. They *denote* linguistic
elements, but are not themselves linguistic elements. In terms of
multilingual limits to the range of elements denoted by language tags,
we have devised a specification that has no significant limits but is
extensible to deal with whatever linguistic distinctions we can
conceivably anticipate ever being needed. But in terms of the
multilingual limits of the tags themselves, this is a non-issue, since
the tags themselves are not linguistic elements.

What I find most personally offensive is that you seem to think I don't
care about multilingualism every bit as much as you do, and that you
interpret anyone who does not share your opinion of what is required to
build an infrastructure for multilingual users is therefore opposed to
multilingualism.



Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru