Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations material iscontradictory

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:35:54 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn

> > Comment 41 in
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00540.html
> > says: (regarding -00 draft)
> > "41. 5. character set consideration are contradictory: they say that
> > character a-z exist in most character sets (good news) [what means
that
> > there are some where they do not exist] so there should not be
> > character set presentation issue [in the character set where they do
> > not exist?]. Also the consideration only concerns the "display" what
> > has a limited interest if the a-z characters do not exist on the
> > keyboard. But may be this supposes that "intelligent people" use
ascii
> > compatible keyboards (see below)."

Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end
users, and especially will not require them to type them in, and since
IT professionals building applications who may need to type these in
will almost certain have other reasons why they need to be able to type
a-z, I think this is not a concern that needs to be addressed in this
draft (no more than it being a concern e.g. for HTTP and countless other
specifications).

Therefore, I suggest that this item be closed.

BTW, the *only* suggestion that "'intelligent people' use ascii
compatible keyboards" has originated with the author of these comments.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 05:58:19 +0200

Peter,
I am sad for you for your afflicting comments.

At 17:35 12/05/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>users

I explained several times how inapropriate is the term "end user" in an end 
to end distributed architecture. In the context of your remarks it shows 
you categorise the users of IETF deliverables, and discriminate their 
access to a common information on the base of their language. I do not want 
to use big words, but this is a patent violation of Human Rights. As is the 
whole langtag concept for that reason.

<snip>
That a Microsoft expert deliberately ignores the non-ascii development 
environments (of his clients) to justify a document, is afflicting.

>compatible keyboards" has originated with the author of these comments.

The terms "intelligent people" is a terminology of the draft 11.txt 
(00.txt). I ask if the authors' wording implies their intelligent people 
(whatever they may mean by that) use ascii compatible keyboards? Please 
does not reverse the suggestion: in my country it qualifies as a criminal 
offense. I suppose it is the case in the other countries applying the UN 
Declaration on Human Rights. It is advisable that IETF documents start 
correcting their lingual discrimination.

You may not know that, I was a GNSO candidate at the ICANN BoD in 9/2001 to 
campaign against the lingual divide. It lead to a ccTLD resolution at the 
Montevideo meeting. FYI it was also to campaign against the concentration 
of root servers in the USA. When I made my public  speach on 9/8, I was 
laughed at and teased, the same I am here. For the same reason: experts 
hates being said the obvious because they should have seen it - beati 
pauperes spiritu. 3 days later on, one root server disapeared in the WTC. 
The WSIS picked that point in its resolutions. Today there are more than 70 
servers around the world - beati pauperes partly won [the file is still the 
NTIA file on the RSSAC ones but on a few others it is already my approach 
...]). Humility and open mind leads to obvious, obvious wins at the end of 
the day. It is a very simple, sometimes slow when you have many experts, 
but a secure rule. You can trust it.

I fully realise that this WG is unwillingly a RFC 3774 show case, so I do 
not want it continue to delay the fix W3C so dearly waits for. I will not 
fight its possibly innapropriately hurting wording now: this is an issue 
with the RFC Editor who feels concerned and will increasingly feel 
concerned with the comming WSIS resolutions on the issue. And I do not seen 
any document published before a long, to take into account Warsaw results, 
etc..

But, I thank you not to add to it. I am sorry: WG management and 
aggresiveness against me, logic contradictions, etc. will not make me to 
call on ADs or IESG or upset me. But this kind of discriminatory words, might.

Please, let have Addison close his Draft, lose the IESG or IETF Last Call, 
ISO 639-4 finalised, this WG review its Charter, build a road-map, produce 
a Framework also respecting the ISO underscore format and the XML separated 
"script, region indications" format and many others, let dig into a few 
concepts about language as human computer sharable relation protocols, fix 
the conflict with charsets declarations, get the text copied around and 
endorsed by concerned communities and made an RFC, may be give me time 
enough to mess it with CRC Canonical Interface Grids, so we can eventually 
have the XML support of BCP 47 documented as an RFC before XML is replaced 
by ASN.2.

This is up to you. I will wait. But stop discriminating. Thank you!
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:08:42 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:35 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations materialiscontradictory
...
> Therefore, I suggest that this item be closed.
...

Since there haven't been any proposals for specific changes to section
7 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-02.txt,
I've closed this item with a status of "rejected".

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:55:51 +0200

>I've closed this item with a status of "rejected".

Dear Mr. Presuhn,
I think I have been clear enough in repeating that:

- characterisation of application's "reasonability" as not exposing 
non-ASCII characters,
- the concept of outcast "end users" who would have only a limited access 
to IETF deliverables,
- imprecise considerations such "will _almost_certain_" ignoring one shot 
all the non-ASCII development environments,

are hardly acceptable in order to support a proposition seriously wanting 
to be a scalable IETF standard for the whole internet

I note that for three hundred years communications have known to build 
language/script independent protocols accessible to everyone and to the 
reading of every lawmaker, Judge and Jury in every courts of the world. I 
have no doubt the WG you chair can come with a similar approach, as a still 
pending serious reading of its Charter would have shown it has been 
entrusted to by the IESG.

Tired to blow in the violin of this mailing list, I went yesterday on 
records about the collective attitude of the affinity group leading this WG 
to a consensus by exhaustion, making it an RFC 3774 show case. So, I will 
not come back on the points I made. My censors will be able to go to these 
two mails. All the more than everyone will suspect your repetition of Peter 
Constable's quote and your wording were a bait on purpose, as a way to 
tackle my yesterday mail. Actually I take advantage of it to copy in Bcc 
all those who did not believe it possible.

I expect that you will now ban me again for disrespect of the Chair, 
defending technical principles supporting the concepts of national 
sovereignty, facilitating international cooperation, cultural empowerment 
and absolute respect of users' person, rights and equal opportunity which 
are explicit or implicit core values of every SDO and of every postal and 
communication architecture for centuries.

If you feel these values and objectives, which are my reason in life for 
decades, are no part of the IETF vision I can only feel sorry for you. I 
then suggest you introduce a Draft to also ban them as a disgrace for the 
centralised Internet you seem to want to build. I also feel sorry for the 
good work of this WG IRT the XML W3C says to need. It is hurt by their 
authors' pretension to make it a new BCP 47 and your politicking. We are 
here to discuss global scalable cute technical solutions, for their 
intelligence and/or for their support of the real world. Not to share into 
now plain to many cross-SDOs commercial maneuvers.

I proposed many times we try to find a consensual proposition addressing 
that commercial interest, avoiding a market dominance and matching the 
Multilingual Internet requirements. This is because I doubt market 
organised joint monopolies can succeed nowadays, but I realise the world is 
not ready to practically replace them. In refusing/fighting this 
proposition and in asking too much, you will only push many to awake and to 
strive to develop responses preventing a lingual tools market control by 
any one, even by leading stakeholders.

For that last reason, and for that reason only, we can all thank you.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:28:46 -0700

Hi -

Unless someone provides a proposal with specific text, issue
[psg.com #969] will remain closed.

Randy, ltru co-chair

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:55 AM
> Subject: last response (was: character set considerations materialis contradictory)
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:14:33 -0700

Hi Jefsey -

I don't know why you are trying so hard to get us to suspend your posting
privileges under the terms RFC 3934.   All concerned would be better served
if you instead focused your considerable energy on proposing specific
text for the drafts.  You might also be a more effective advocate if you kept
your postings short and to the point.  If you stop insulting WG members and
misrepresenting their positions, they might be more inclined to listen to
what you say.

However, if your disruptive postings cause the WG to waste excessive time
and energy, your posting privileges may again be suspended.

Randy, ltru co-chair