r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote: >>> Addison describes his intent to rule the future. No objection to >>> that, except he also wants to rule the net.(BCP 47) >> >> I am amazed and bewildered that this sort of personal abuse is >> allowed to continue, month after month. It makes me not want to >> participate any more. > > Which abuse ???? Your mail is either hurting without reason or a > troll? This is not the first time you have claimed that either this WG or its members are trying to "rule the future" or "take over the world." This WG is trying to expand the existing mechanism for specifying the language of content on the Internet and elsewhere. You greatly overestimate the global importance of this project, and badly misunderstand the intentions of its participants. Making demonstrably false accusations that WG participants are trying to hijack the Internet, trample on the national rights of governments, take over control of ISO standards, and manipulate cultures is what is hurtful. Why don't you quote the e-mail in which Addison "describes his intent to rule the future"? Go ahead, I'll wait. > - Addison describes his plan Not just his. > which is to make what he calls RFC 3066 bis/ter to more and more > define a grammar, semantic, etc. So every version stays compatible > with the previous one (but not the previous one with the new one). > This has the advantage to get at the end of the day a very strict, may > be clear (if there are not too many complexity to address the legacy > of the previous RFCs), an probably stable system. I have no problem > with this, except that I do not understand its use. But Addison says > he needs it. RFC 1766 and 3066 already defined a grammar and semantic. The current draft expands on this. Lots of people need this, not just Addison personally, and not just the W3C. People have been saying this for over a year; you have chosen not to listen or believe. > - the problem is that he also wants to make his draft to replace RFC > 3066, what will make it ipso-facto the new BCP 47. BCP 47 is the > current rule of the net in matter of languages. In the matter of assigning short text strings to *represent* languages. This is an important distinction. None of this "tagging" activity has anything to do with defining, authorizing, sanctioning, supporting, or suppressing the languages themselves. They are just symbols. Why don't you go pick on Harald Alvestrand for trying to "rule the future" back in 2001, when RFC 3066 was published and made a BCP? > I do not see what can be abusive and personal in this??? Accusing Addison of trying to "rule the future" is abusive and personal. He is doing his job as WG participant and co-editor of a WG document. > This problem is the _only_ real problem of this Draft. It was > documented at length by John Klensin, Dave Crocker and others during > the last Last Call and will make the next Last Call fail. We are supposed to be moving forward, not obsessing on last December. But since you mention it, most of the criticism of the previous Last Call that I heard, as a member of ietf-languages (where most of those concerns were being aired), had to do with the fact that the document wasn't created by a WG, and as such had no charter or chair or AD, and thus no accountability and format review process. Now we have all of those things. > This lack of understanding of the Internet standard process by W3C > people can be easily shown. You go on Google and look for "W3C RFC > 3066" (and RFC3066): there are 14,950 responses. If you enter the same > "W3C BCP 47", you get 675 responses (0.5%). This means that people > refer to the non-canonical version of what they want to say, and that > they will have to update all of them if the Draft is approved. Would > they have understood the Internet standard process document management > system, they would have most probably used BCP as a BCP can be > updated, not an RFC, and is therefore canonical. It means that many more people on the Internet refer to RFC numbers than to BCP numbers. Criticizing and opposing our project is perfectly fine, and a normal part of the process. Accusing individuals of trying to take over the world is absolutely uncalled for. I am sure that there is some perfectly good reason why the co-chairs are allowing this personal sniping and misrepresentation to continue unchecked, but for the life of me I don't understand it. It will certainly make me think twice about volunteering to participate in another IETF WG, and it may cause me to leave this one. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ 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.