Subject: RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:17:34 +0000

Vernon Schryver wrote:

[some lines re-wrapped]

vs> Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of 
vs> "escalate" in the intended sense of "evoke to an authority that 
vs> will issue a writ of mandamus."

*I* certainly did not intend such a meaning.  Maybe I used the wrong 
word; if so I apologise.  I meant something along the lines of 
"refer".  My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison 
group is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the 
IETF and the W3C.  There can be differences of emphasis in the two 
groups, due to the different (though, I hope, complementary) nature 
of the work being done by both.  For example, the W3C is very 
concerned about the longevity of data and metadata.  I don't know 
what is the prevailing IETF position, but quite a few of the 
contributors to the langtags discussion have treated longevity of 
data and metadata as being of no importance (cf the debate over how 
to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of Countries).  I 
consider this to be a fundamental issue.

vs> Other words in Mr. Wolf's message including "any course of 
vs> action which would cause a parting of the ways" were not lacking 
vs> in forcefulness.

Indeed.  It would, self-evidently, be bad for the Internet were 
these various standards bodies not able to agree on a common course 
of action.  The danger of such an outcome requires forceful language.

vs> Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF 
vs> list members is ignoring at its peril.
vs> See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html

Ignoring at its peril?  I was simply demonstrating that standards 
bodies and individuals with long and respected track records have 
been involved for some years in the langtags work.  I was responding 
to mails which claimed that there is no support for this work.

vs> When I read Mr. Wolf's message the first time, I was reminded of 
vs> an IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as 
vs> ancient friction between the DDN protocol designers and users 
vs> and the ISO.

I see.  The IETF embodies participation and democracy and all other 
standards groups are the preserves of hierarchical posturing?  An 
interesting point of view.

--
Misha Wolf
Standards Manager
Chief Architecture Office
Reuters

-------------------------------------------------------------- --
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

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

---

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:19:12 +0000

Hi John,

Your mail [1] puzzles me.  I don't think I suggested that the W3C is 
developing language tags.  On the contrary, I wrote [2]:

|  The W3C is highly dependent on the RFC 1766/3066 family of RFCs, 
|  as language-handling in HTML and XML is delegated to these RFCs.
|  Within the W3C, the responsibility for keeping an eye on these 
|  RFCs lies with the I18N WG.

I also did not suggest most of the other things which you imply that 
I had suggested.

The facts of the matter are:

-  various IETF protocols and data structures make use of language 
   tags

-  various W3C protocols and data structures make use of language 
   tags

There are a number of important issues needing resolution, including 
the stability of language tags over time.  The current draft 
attempts to deal with these.

I note your characterisation of the IETF/W3C liaison (as only 
tackling formal projects that both bodies are engaged in, etc).  You 
may be quite correct, though one might be forgiven for forming a 
different impression, looking at:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/

  [email-masked] Mail Archives

  IETF/W3C coordination: identification of areas of overlap, 
  coordination of reviews, and meeting coverage.

and:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2002Jun/0001.html

  announcing [email-masked]

  [too long to quote]

and:

  http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#IETF

  [which lists I18N under W3C Activities affected]

I have no idea where you got all the other strange ideas you appear 
to attribute to me (about overruling the IESG etc), so I won't 
respond to them.

[1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33603.html

[2] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33553.html

--------------------------------------------------------------- -
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:42:44 -0500

>  Date: 2005-01-11 05:17
>  From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>

>  My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison 
> IETF and the W3C.

Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort,
exactly who would represent the IETF, on what basis, and
for what purpose?

> I don't know 
> to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of Countries).

I believe that ("being of no importance") is a gross
mischaracterization which does not represent what
*anybody* involved in the discussion since the December
New Last Call has said, much less the claimed "quite a few".

> been involved for some years in the langtags work.

You specifically stated that the draft-philips-... "work has
been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode collaboration",
and proceeded to list 3 W3C participants, 1 Unicode Consortium
participant, mentioned a W3C WG and a Unicode Consortium
project, but *no* IETF participation and of course no IETF
WG.  That remarkable comment -- "IETF [...] collaboration"
with no IETF participation -- occurred after considerable
discussion of the process.  It also occurred two days after
the close of the New Last Call, so I have until this latest
reference back to that peculiar statement declined to comment
on it.

Something is gravely wrong when an ad-hoc group believes
that it is in "collaboration" with the IETF by ignoring
published (RFC 2418) IETF procedures and protocols and by
failing to advise or consult with established IETF groups
likely to have an interest in the IETF standard which the
ad-hoc group proposes to replace.

When a public gross mischaracterization of New Last Call
discussion is piled on top of such claims of "collaboration",
we've gone well beyond "gravely wrong".  I'm dumbfounded
and can't find a term to adequately portray my shock and
horror at such outrageous remarks.