RE: [Ltru] Introduction change: suggested text

["Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips at quest.com>]

I think that the following sentiments are a good summary of my position as well.

In response to the particular suggestion of Martin's below, as well as a previous thread concerning artificial languages and whether those were excluded and so forth, I would like to propose that we change the text at the start of Section 2 from:

<q>The language tag always defines a language as used (which includes being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other human beings. Computer languages such as programming languages are explicitly excluded.</q>

to read:

<t>The language tag is used to identify a language as used (which includes being spoken, written, signed, or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of information to other human beings. A language of this type is sometimes called a 'natural language', and this includes constructed or artificially designed languages, such as Esperanto. Languages not intended primarily for human communication, such as programming and other computer languages, are explicitly excluded.</t>

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> Sent: 2005?7?13? 3:28
> To: Randy Presuhn; ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed addition after introduction (was: JerseyJE
> andGuernsey GG Country Codes)
> 
> 
> [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.) 
[Addison Phillips] 

Amen.

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. 
[Addison Phillips] 

+1
> 
> 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..."
> 
I agree: this text leads away from the intentions of the document and from the spirit of RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 in general.



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