Subject: Re: Language Tags: Response to a part of Jefsey's comments concerning the W3C

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:29:01 -0800

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>

> why not to follow under IAB guidance (or to review) the charter I
proposed
> yesterday, in an IETF way everyone could participate, and to have all
these
> applications supported one shot in working on a linguistic ontology
where
> each language instance would be documented by an ad hoc authoritative
> source. Otherwise it could not be the standard you wish.

The objective of RFC 3066 or any successor is not language documentation
(which I understand to mean more or less language description). Perhaps
I misunderstand what you're saying here.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:10:16 +0100

>I misunderstand what you're saying here.

The first documentation is the kind of tag (or tags) needed by the RFC 3066 
users. The language support (which actually correpond to the support of 
lingual virtual networks) must be consistant throughout the architecture, 
operations, applications, manufacturers, etc. or this means that languages 
which are the ways human beings to relate together would suffer from 
standard/patent originated divides. This is not acceptable technically and 
humanly.

An ontology describes the reality. A standard shapes it. We do not want 
tools to shape our behaviours, but their best techical support.
jfc