Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:00:38 -0700

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

> >XML, HTML, etc. are not IETF protocols and should not be the main
> >consideration in IETF work on IETF documents,
> 
> They are specifically quoted by the Charter. Also is CLDR...

These are cited in the charter only as examples in a statement to the
effect that "the RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely
adopted in various protocols and text formats..."

> It is to note that ISO 639-4 work is about discussing guidelines in
> that area. This work is under way and was not considered.

Mr. Morfin appears to me to have no more than a very vague sense of the
scope of ISO 639-4.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:09:56 +0200

>adopted in various protocols and text formats..."

Yes then?
BTW is CLDR an IETF protocol? I tried to get the insurrence that 
there would never be IPR attached to it. Never got it. Since it is a 
way to introduce and stabilise a proprietary file in every Linux 
system, I am interested in the license and in the warranty it will 
never permit protected inclusions. All the more than I would prefer a 
community proposition. May be a good solution would be a structural alliance?

My concern is also the magnitude of the project and the allocated 
interest and the voluntaries. Also the legal responsibility in case 
of error (I am only rising questions from Gov officials).

Nevertheless a lot of time has been spent on XML. And the only 
compatibility which has been worked on is with XML librairies. I do 
not oppose that (one of the authors puiblishes one), but I would 
appreciate other protcols and processes such as OPES, DNS, computer 
languages (I was opposed when discussing java), project (I docimented 
CRC enough...) PPP, IANA, etc.have been considered.

>Mr. Morfin appears to me to have no more than a very vague sense of the

This is somewhat fun as I am a contributor.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:39:36 -0700

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> BTW is CLDR an IETF protocol? I tried to get the insurrence
> that there would never be IPR attached to it. Never got it.

I can't speak for anything having to do with ICU, but even if it were
IPR-protected, that does not mean all of the protocols and standards it
uses must themselves be IPR-protected.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:34:54 -0700

One must not confuse ICU and CLDR:

- CLDR is a project of the Unicode Consortium.
- ICU is an open-source project, sponsored by IBM, that *uses* CLDR data.

In both cases, however, data and code is freely available, with attribution.

Mark

(You know this, Doug, just pointing out for others.)

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
>