Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 10:58:54 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of JFC
> (Jefsey) Morfin

> This is shocking under the pen of a global standadizer. I will not
comment
> on the contempt for "end-users", non for the exclusion of non-Latin
script
> programmers.

Do you make as much fuss about (say) the fact that HTTP headers use
Latin characters and that one can't substitute Arabic or other scripts?

We're talking about documentation of protocol elements. When end users
are involved, I think everyone here would strongly support the need for
"multilingualization", but his is not an end-user issue.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 03:37:55 +0200

At 19:58 03/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > comment on the contempt for "end-users", non for the exclusion
> > of non-Latin script programmers.
>

Dear Peter,
This kind of question is always embarassing, because it shows how much the 
author do not understand what he discusses. I know this is not on purpose. 
I will address it to show IESG, and possibly IAB, in appeal that I tried 
every time I could to explain how much this WG is out of its track.

This is not an accademic meeting over three ISO standard's conflicting 
oddities. This is not a W3C forum trying to patch an XML misconception. 
This is not a few followers helping with the wording of a twice last-calls 
denied concept.

This is an IETF WG having to study, check and document an Internet and 
Internet application wide response to the need of identifying and tagging 
the languages. For and according to the Internet standard process to 
generate standards, documents, procedures, protocols, best practices. For 
the Internet to become legally acceptable as a global system.

To do that this WG should have attracted enough authoritative experts (or 
declare itself uncompetent) to study and complet from their own experience, 
developments and plans, the points in the Charter.

I am sure that in this process you would have realized that HTTP is an 
Internet protocol in the area of this WG as are every Internet protocol. So 
you would understand that I am making no special, but general, fuss. Your 
contribution to the WG would have been still more valuable, because you 
would have learned from seasoned experts that the very basis of a network 
architecture is consistency and coherence. A coherence with the human 
protocols (languages) it supports the ASCII Internet has not. A big problem 
our job is precisely to start addressing.

For the rest, I am not in a position to comment: please document (RFC?) 
what is an "end user" for an IETF WG. I obviously understand what it may 
mean for an host application designer (like W3C?) but here it does not make 
any sense to me.

all the best.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 04:26:25 +0200

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> this WG should have attracted enough authoritative experts
> (or declare itself uncompetent)

It's really sad that this WG only attracted Martin, Mark, and
Addison, who know nothing about I18N, isn't it ?  And now go
and find a forum where you can explain the Web to Sir Tim...

> HTTP is an Internet protocol

...yes, he will be very excited about this great news.  Good
luck with your future endeavours.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:38:27 -0700

Hi -

The translation of field identifiers is the registry file is not this WG's
problem. If someone want to do it in some file they've generated from
the registry, that's *their* (and their users') problem, not ours.

Others one this list have already explained why, in general,
translating these bits is probably a bad idea.  If someone
does it anyway, they've simply created their own format, and
it's no longer our problem.

Jefsey: if you truly believe this merits an appeal to the IESG,
please do so *now*.

Randy, ltru co-chair

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last registry for now
>

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 10:46:52 +0100

True. And I regret raising that point (if it was I who first did so). I
am happy with Doug's response, and with Randy's (below), and would like
to ask for a quick end to this particular thread, so the real work can
go on.
mg 

Scríobh Randy Presuhn:
> the registry, that's *their* (and their users') problem, not ours...
-- 

Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an 
Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] *

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:01:52 +0200

>to ask for a quick end to this particular thread, so the real work can

Dear Marion,
you did not "rise" that point - you just quoted a necessary issue. The real 
matter of this WG is here and its real work is to address that problem in a 
way which addresses the problems met by the whole internet community with 
RFC 3066. These problems are at least (there may be others experts of this 
WG would add from their experience):

- Stability and accessibility of the underlying ISO standards
- Difficulty with registrations and their acceptance
- Lack of clear guidance on how to identify script and region where necessary
- Lack of parseability and the ability to verify well-formedness.
- Lack of specified algorithms, apart from pure prefix matching, for 
operations on language tags.

You will note this means at least three groups of resulting issues:

1. to address these points in the ASCII Internet context, what means a 
better writting of the previous document.
2. to address these points in a Multilingual Internet context, where most 
of the quoted problems results in part or in toto from their non 
multilingual approach (when you solve a complex problem, you usually find 
that you solved also several other smaller problems)
3. to address the legacy of some applications having either or both relied 
on the RFC 3066 limitations or not expected this evolution.

Today this WG only really addresses point 3 in the context of XML and may 
be (?) CLDR. This should be part of the second document foreseen by the 
Charter. The Charter and the first document still need to be worked on. 
Without it, the current proposition has not the necessary framework to stand.

jfc

PS. Since you were not involved earlier and you may not have lurked, the 
disagreement is easy to understand. RFC 3066 is uncertain enough to have 
statisfied everyone for four years. But Unicode and W3C people have found 
that they needed it to be more precise, created a Draft and now a WG. Most 
of the others are not excited because IETF is not interested in 
multilingualism (this is documented by IAB RFC 3869 which lists the 
Internet R&D priorities) and because the ASCII Internet works today. This 
disinterest has lead most of the Internet world outside of the IETF (you 
may have a count of the non English mother tongue participants to this WG) 
and because this is a general IETF/ICANN attitude often expressed by Vint 
Cerf all over the WSIS process: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 
http://techrepublic.com.com/5102-7914-5178386.html

In reality the Internet does work but does not fit the job. Doug's non 
corrected lacks of knowledge of the real world internet and programming 
practices, only shows that IETF members just do not realise it by lack of 
basic information (interest?). There are two options (and I think the 
earliest they converge the best it is):

1. to document and build a Multilingual Internet. This participates from a 
common consistent process of Internet technology upgrade. The technical 
implications on the Internet architecture (externets) is a really major 
one. But I hardly see how we can spare it.

2. to build a Multilingual New Global Network. ML.NGN. This is also what we 
work on.

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 11:52:20 +0200

Dear WG Members,
For the records: since this issue may lead to the further study of our 
archives by many, I will try to keep the answers on a per mail basis as 
requested by external readers. Apologies for that. I fully understand that 
an American/Franglish is already complex for many to follow.

>and find a forum where you can explain the Web to Sir Tim...

If you have read the charter I do not understand what this have to do with 
the first document. It is about networking architecture and administration, 
stability of foreign table concordance (data base management), presentation 
of information (programing), etc. I suppose that some in this group need to 
be explained the web and its daily usage, but there are other more pressing 
areas to explain to the members of this WG as the purpose of the IETF, what 
is a protocol, what is the Internet architecture, what is scalability, what 
is multilingualism, what is a database maintenance, etc. because they are 
part of our charter. But I must say I am unable to advise the best forum 
for that.

As to "Sir Tim" I am at loss understanding who you refer to? From the 26 
persons or avatars who shared in this WG up to now, even with a single 
mail, none is named "Tim-something" or "Sir"?

>luck with your future endeavours.

I must say I do not understand what you may want to say here?
jfc