How many times do I have to write, troll, that my work here is unaffiliated with my work at W3C (or anywhere else)? I do not "sign" my work here as a "member" of the W3C. The only person on this list that purports to represent more than one person is YOU. You claim to represent organizations as well as the opinions of others. I claim to represent only myself. Frostily, 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 r&d afrac > Sent: 2005?8?6? 14:52 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs > > May be should I ask now a question I always wanted to ask. Addison co- > signs > his Draft on language tags as a member of the W3C. He explained well the > problems he faces with XML (Mark did not explain the ones he has with CLDR > locales, and I have been prevented to explain those I have with the > DNS-locales). > > So, we have an Internet standard process oriented BCP Draft, by the W3C > generously imposed to all the Internet protocols, to document the language > sub-class of tag object class. > > There is a document approved as an RFC on the Editor's desk which > describes > "the tag URIs also known as 'tags'", i.e. that tag class. This document is > authored by gentlemen from HP and W3C. This Draft by gentlemen from IBM > and > W3C. This RFC soon to be published (draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt) is the > Internet document of reference we used as a source of inspiration when > documenting the "x-tags", trying to keep two W3C Drafts consistent. > Everyone observed it is not that it is not easy. > > The Kindberg/Hawke RFC, approved by the IESG, has still be less considered > by this WG than the IESG Charter. It is however as well worded as the > Draft > on some points. So after having tried with the "x-" proposition, we > followed Lee Guillam and disengaged through the "0-" escaped sequence. But > technically it is unlikely that Draft be accepted if the "x-" does not > support Kindberg RFC inheritance. > > The difference between the two documents are: > - the Kindberg/Hawke RFC has been approved, is open and tag class generic, > respects ISO 1179, and includes a disclaimer that it may not reflect the > views and opinion of the W3C > - the Draft has already failed two Last Calls, is constrained and limited > to tag sub-class, is not interested in aligning on ISO 11179 and does not > include an IESG or W3C disclaimer. > > The problem is that the ABNFs of the two documents (as it was opposed to > me) are not compatible. The "x-" format I proposed was Kindberg/Hawke > conformant, but was denied by the W3C author of the Draft. > > There is therefore a need for the Draft either to include a disclaimer > that > the "W3C language tag" does not represent the views and opinion of the W3C > anymore than the Kindberg/Hawke, or that to the contrary the ambiguity of > the Kindberg/Hawker RFC is now clarify and the Draft do represent the > views > and opinions of the W3C and Unicode, at least for the part of the tag > class > documenting languages. > > Otherwise it is likely that the Draft will be opposed the IESG approved > definition of a "tag". The solution seems obvious. It is simply to modify > the "x-" ABNF as: > > "encapsulates a RFC X- ABNF conformant tag" > > and to remove the adverse language in 2.2. > > 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.