If the WG standadisers do not see it, users do. Users are most probably more literary oriented people (authors, sales, newsmen, artists and site designers, etc.), trained/informed by people of some education, probably not using English (they less need langtags). Having another user (not what Peter Constable calls an "end user") sharing with me the need to use langtags in a heavy and delayed applications, could be a real help for me to document why the Draft does not deliver what _we_ (users) need and expect.
Non-English mother tongue literary academics are the typical "affected parties" (like me and my organisation) the Internet standard process (RFC 2026/1.2 is quoted here) wants to consider the needs, within the framework of the widespread community consensus, and to serve with specifications of high quality in spite of the difficulty of evaluating the utility of particular specifications for an Internet community (where English is a minority language: 61.6% of the Internet users do not speak English). The WG takes users needs as an opposition, and wants to impose on us/them a commercial scheme we do not trust and which does fit the bill. Before addressing our needs ourselves as suggested by John, I make a last try.
If I review the proposed deliverable as one of its future users and along the RFC 2066/1.2 criteria: - of technical excellence: the ABNF is improved, the "0-", we need to support all what the ABNF does not provide, is still missing. - with a prior implementation and testing. We cannot test: a simple reading shows that it does not provide our needed 5 elements. - with clear, concise, and easily understood documentation. hmmm. A long text to impeach the resolution of our needs.
- with openness and fairness - IMO that part is not achieved yet!- and timeliness. I am sorry but all this is overdue when compared to market's needs and expectations. This is why we need to stop disputing the details of a now cleaner but low interest ABNF (if it is not much used it is not because it was poorly defined. It was because it is a provider's solution and it does not fit the users needs. The provider's end has the missing elements it cannot transport to the receiver's end. The langtag protocol is only of use when the information it does not transport is not considered.
jfc
On 15:17 11/09/2005, r&d afrac said:I received the following from a WG Member (I rephrase it by netiquette, because it might disclose the author):" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4172085.stmDo you know if there is another non-English mother tongue Member with litterary accademic background in this WG?"I never asked. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.