[with my co-chair hat on] I'd like to thank JFC on actually submitting real text. As both chairs have said repeatedly, this is the best way to move things forward. For everybody: If you make an actual proposal (rather than just discuss a proposal), please use a new subject. Also, please indicate clearly that you want this change to happen as part of WG Last Call. Otherwise, we're never sure whether that's what you want, or whether your proposal is just "as an idea". [with my co-chair hat off] I quite a bit agree with the sentiment in some of the text. (I have worked on Internationalization of the WWW and the Internet for a long time, so I hope this doesn't come as a surprise.) However, as an engineer, I think that what counts is the actual spec. As a technical project, the only thing we can do is to try to produce good technology, and hope it gets used the right way. Engineers in general, and the IETF in particular, is rather bad at marketing and politics, and I think we should stay away from it. Declarations like those in JFC's proposed text are very important in political fora, but in my opinion don't belong in a technical spec (like ours). Also, some of the wording proposed sounds a bit too much like "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Liberte', Egalite', Fraternite'", or whatever your local version), or seen from the negative side, like "motherhood and applepie" (sorry, don't know what the French equivalent would be). The only bit where I'd like a bit more time to check the current draft text is JFCs first paragraph. If we are not clear enough that the draft and the registry don't define languages, but only provide identifiers, then I think may be a problem. But if this is the case, then this should be fixed mostly by word tweaking, rather than by grandiose declarations. As an example, looking at the first sentence of section @, it currently starts "The language tag always defines a language...". I think this should be changed to say "The language tag always identifies a language..." Regards, Martin. At 16:10 05/07/13, Randy Presuhn wrote: >Hi - > >I'd like to get a hum on this proposed addition. Obviously it would need some >work on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and other editorial details. I'm just >interested in finding out whether the WG supports adding something that conveys >the sense of the proposal. > >Please post to the ltru list whether you support or oppose the addition. > >Randy, ltru co-chair > >----- Original Message ----- >> From: "r&d afrac" <rd at afrac.org> >> To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>; "'Debbie Garside'" ><debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>; "'Peter Constable'" ><petercon at microsoft.com>; <ltru at ietf.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:14 PM >> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes >> > >> At 23:44 12/07/2005, Debbie Garside wrote: >> >So... are you telling me that I have to go back to Tony (Blair) and tell him >> >his letter won't be necessary...? ;-) >> >> Debbie, >> ad-hominem! If Tony wants to discuss his position on the Jersey and >> Gernesey langtags, please have him joining this list. >> >> This may look as a troll. But it is not. It is a perfect example of the >> inadequation of IETF to address issues which are beyond its scope. >> Sometime, a langtag user will have a conflict between an IETF Internet >> defined conception and legal definition of Her Gacious Majesty Government. >> And will lose time, money, credibility, etc. due to that. The Draft will >> lose credibility. Hardly what the authors want. >> >> The Draft should start with the following warning (just after the >> Introduction): >> >> "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not an >> appropriate correlation between a language, a script, a country and other >> cultural or human language elements as they may appear necessary. The >> selection of ISO 639 to obtain a language/script/country correlating table >> and rules was made with the knowldge that ISO has procedures to determine >> which resulting language tags should be and should not be on such a list. >> It happens that ISO 639 does not provide yet such a list. So, however the >> IANA is not in the business of deciding if this is a lack ISO still has to >> address or if it is a deliberated authoritative decision, the IANA intends >> to extend the possibilities offered to Internet protocols and applications >> users by RFC 3066. This Memo describes under which technical terms this may >> be done, notwithstanding the national or international legal limitations >> which may be imposed elsewhere to the users." >> >> "The IANA adheres to the language equal opportunity declaration: >> >> "The purpose of technology isn't to insure that everybody should have an >> equal opportunity whatever his language, its purpose is to allow this goal. >> >> "This document's aim is to allow everyone to freely share the cultural life >> of the Internet community, to enjoy using its solutions on an equal >> linguistic, cultural, technical, economical and commercial basis, and to >> share into the benefits of the technology and its advancements without >> distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, >> political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or >> other status and education. Therefore the goal is to build a common >> technical standard for all people and all nations to be used or embedded in >> any technical solution, without any limitation resulting from the script, >> the language, the referent or the context of their technical environment. >> >> "Taking into account the granular nature and the diversity of the world's >> digital ecosystem as well as the requirements of its technical convergence, >> the authors of this technical memorandum strongly advocate its free, secure >> and stable implementation to serve the rights and freedoms of its users at >> an international, national and personal level, in the respect of sovereign >> laws and jurisdiction of each State, of the empowerment of local cultures, >> and of its intergovernance by subsidiarity in any of the public or private, >> community or individual contexts. " >> >> (text to be revised along with its review by the members of the global >> on-line community in preparation of the Tunis declaration) >> >> jfc >... > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru at lists.ietf.org>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ 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.