Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

+1

I have to say that there are some strong characters in this forum and if
people are feeling intimidated and bullied this will put other people off
participating.

Also, I think that for such an important issue to be decided during
conference calls means that there is no discussion history to fall back on
and this doesn't help those of us who missed the conference calls.

Those of us who missed the conference calls are feeling intimidated into not
discussing extlang as others within this forum are saying it is dealt with.
Even those who were pro extlang are being 'bullied' into not mentioning it.
This is unacceptable.

Like Karen, I feel that the discussion re 'zh' and Mandarin has got out of
hand - hence my comment on Doug's draft.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Karen_Broome at spe.sony.com
> Sent: 10 May 2008 01:06
> To: Mark Davis
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang or not extlang
>
> The extlang decision was mostly made on  ill-announced
> conference calls, not the list.  While you may feel you
> discussed this to death, some of us feel bullied.  There must
> be some new information as we've changed the draft as a
> result of recent discussion and our recommendation for the
> world's most popular language. Your recent statement that it
> would be better if "cmn" was deprecated was totally shocking
> to me. The suggestion that "in practice" zh should be treated
> as Mandarin is an affront to non-Mandarin Chinese languages
> and will create problems.  I believe there are at least four
> or five longtime followers of this work who are not totally
> comfortable with this decision.
>
> I'm starting to think it would be better for my needs if RFC
> 4646bis was never released. While this may not be true for
> everyone, RFC 4646bis now does not add anything that I
> personally need and it changes the semantics of tags I
> already use. I do not want to see the "zh" tag narrowed "in
> practice" as that would mean I can't trust any "zh" tag to
> mean what I think it means. I'm not even 100% sure where we
> stand on Chinese languages now and this affects how I feel
> about extlang. I am afraid I will regret putting the words
> "RFC 4646bis or its successor" into numerous A/V standards
> now that I see ISO 639-6 nearing completion and the
> unexpected turn in the direction of this work.
>
> This update could be a death knell for xml:lang as I don't
> think developers will be able to follow these guidelines consistently.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karen Broome
> Sony Pictures Entertainment
>
>
>
>
> ltru-bounces at ietf.org wrote on 05/09/2008 03:55:03 PM:
>
> > I'm completely opposed.
> >
> > We spent a long time reviewing all of the issues before coming to a
> > way to move forward on the extlang issue. There has been no new
> > information that was not available at the time we made the decision.
> > It was a very long and involved process. While there are advantages
> > and disadvantages to both sides, I see no reason to believe that we
> > would come to a different conclusion, and it would
> undoubtedly take a
> > similar amount of time before we come to resolution. I have
> refrained
> > from responding to those suggesting that extlang was the
> solution just
> > so as to not complicate the issue, because I really don't think we
> > want to go through that process again.
> >
> > The way that the current text reads, it is absolutely trivial for
> > those who want to support particular macrolanguage
> fallbacks to do so,
> > and it does not end up with the fallback in the many, many
> cases where
> > it leads to worse results.
> >
> > Reopening the issue will delay us for no good reason. We have spent
> > long enough on 4646bis, it is time to get this revision out.
> >
> > Mark
>
> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Phillips, Addison
> <addison at amazon.com>
> wrote:
> > Co-chairs,
> >
> > It seems we have arrived back at an impasse. I still think
> not having
> > extlang is the correct course.
> >
> > I would not be opposed to restoring extlang, if that is the
> consensus
> > of the group and provided it can be done expeditiously.
> >
> > Can you please institute some process for resolving this issue--
> > either closing off the reappearance of extlang or deciding
> to restore
> > it and focusing on completing the draft in the next few weeks under
> > that banner.
> >
> > Addison
> >
> > Addison Phillips
> >
> > Internationalization is not a feature.
> > It is an architecture.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>




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