RE: [Ltru] Conference on Language Standards

[r&d afrac <rd at afrac.org>]

At 23:16 13/10/2005, Debbie Garside wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> > Um, well, no.  Not only is "z" correct for en-us, it is also correct for
> > en-gb-oed.
>
> IMHO, the OED editor must have had American roots when that was added ;-)
>
> Both are correct according to OED.  Personally I think only "s" is correct
> for en-gb.
>
> Just for interest... I think this article is most relevant
> http://www.britishcouncil.org/seminars-themes-education-0202.htm

This article is quite relevant, but it makes the same mistake as the 
IETF. So, I think the OED editor has American roots and the BC was 
not familiar with Eurospeak yet, or still British enough. The today 
IESG pro globalization position will probably help clarifying this 
now, in permitting to technically differentiate with globalisation.

Global has two meanings.
- in English, French, etc. it means all the parts of a whole, united, 
the globe diversity. Because we ran the Globe and found it diverse.
- in American it means universal, unified, "catholic" (in the old Greek sense).
For example a guy like José Bové is for globalisation against globalization.

Now, when you consider language filtering, as it is the case in here, 
you have a problem. Let just consider the simplest case: a menu with 
your languages + default. You can either (as documented by Addison) 
default to American (because you globalize, i.e. internationalise 
American + localise) or you can default to a more complex (and [non 
American] real life system) where the default is relative to the 
interlocutor and the language (then you globalise).

Let take an example. We start a chat. You send me your possible 
langtags. Because I know who you are (layer 6 violation) I will pick 
English, because I know you care. Now, if I start a chat with Randy 
(layer 6 violation) I will back to Spanish, because he was hurting 
enough with my Franglish and I know he lived in South of France, so 
he may have some practice.

So, English (and other Koines - American is the computer koine and an 
architectural Internet mistake [communications protocols are usually 
digital to be multilingual]) is like the Esope's tongue. The problem 
is the filtering policy and this policy depends on the limitations of 
the protocol it is to work with. The RFC 3066 bis protocol is far too 
rigid: so whatever the filtering you will use, it will lack the 
flexibility you might want. Mind you, the problem will be reduced, 
but will stay with ISO 639-6.

The real issue is to accept that networked languages are something 
apart or/and complementary from their spoken, written, signed, 
silent, multimedia modes. And that each time a different filtering 
policy/strategy can be used. And then to design the tools to support 
them (protocols, identifiers, filters, etc. etc. in a way matching 
their modal needs)

jfc





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