Subject: RE: [Ltru] singleton DIGIT (was: W3C tag policy disclaimersand IETF RFCs)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:34:45 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of r&d afrac

> The first problem is here. Unicode (Mark Davis' culture) is about
> characters in texts and W3C (Addison Philips' cultures) is about Web
> i.e.  modern software to print/display/speak texts. But IETF is about
> Internet architecture and the Draft does not bridge the huge gap
between
> one of the network application, however big it is and however
historically
> rooted it is, and the network architecture. The only way they have to
keep
> them together is to "constrain" the network into their
typographer/printer
> culture. This obviously cannot work. Typographer, printer and
bookstores
> chains are different trades.

This is a pretty empty critique. You assert that the draft fails to
"bridge the gap...", but that is not a measurable technical
specification. What specifically is the requirement -- what are the
scenarios in which beneficial functionality is lacking? You have not
identified any. Further, you assert that the authors have
"'constrain[ed]' the network" to the requirements of
typographers/printers, but there is nothing in the draft that reflects
that, and furthermore it has been shown all along that the draft
provides for tags for not-textual content equally with textual content.

> The second problem is that the customers needs are outdated and the
book
> industry does not know how to match our time's challenge.

Another empty critique since, as mentioned, there is nothing about this
draft that limits it to use for textual content, let alone books in
particular. Moreover, you have failed to acknowledge that this WG
includes members of the non-print media industry, and those members are
in support of the draft.

> The supposed retrocompatibility obligation with a never used format is
> only a bluff.

Everyone else here seems to think otherwise.

> Another problem with Jefsey: he is no English mother-tongue. So he
knows
> more 

There's a fine bit of prejudice. If two people speak both English and
French, one mother-tongue French and the other mother-tongue English,
then the former is on that basis more knowledgeable? It's pretty
arrogant to assert that you know more, and even discount the knowledge
of others here who support the draft yet are not mother-tongue English
speakers.

> and he is engaged into structures, solutions, propositions that do
> not
> want to use English as the language of reference. This is quite
worrying
> for several reasons.

Since we are discussing a specification for protocol elements that are
themselves non-linguistic, abstract identifiers, this is irrelevant
except in perhaps in regard to the language or languages in which the
specification and documentation of the identifiers is provided. Anyone
is free to translate these. It is not an IETF requirement that
development of specifications be conducted in a multilingual manner.

> - One reason is that industry is mainly US driven and has no
collective
> knowledge, experience and practice of languages at this level.
> Multilingualism is a difficult and complex area. Stakeholders prefer
to
> address it as an internationalisation+localisation

Internationalization and localization are simply two aspects of product
development in response to a multilingual environment. The fact that
industry identifies these two items as significant in their own right
does not make industry, or even US industries, ignorant of
multilingualism.

> Another problem with Jefsey is that he only considers the "Web" as one
> application on the network and not as the main system.

There is nothing about this draft that limits its focus of application
to the Web.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:59:42 +0200

> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]

Dear Peter,
thank you for your comments. Always a pleasure.

>identified any.

Difficult to list what is missing since it is precisely all the missing 
debate I am calling for. What would be easier is to list what in this Draft 
is  IETF specifc, addressing the network aspects. For example, as I listed 
it, the missing term definitions do not permit the Draft to indicate what 
it actually talk about.

>Further, you assert that the authors have

The Draft intends to constrain RFC 3066. This is not only visible in 
comparing the two texts. But has been fully documented by Addison. I am 
always interested in reading you. But even if we have now reached the point 
where you now have to "sell" your document and for the rest of us to buy it 
or not, I suggest you do not engage in a salesman pitch saying that your 
deliverable does not do what it has been designed for, just because you 
know that your prospects do not like it.

>includes members of the non-print media industry, and those members are

The people of this WG have been called to say they support the Draft. A 
very few shown up, BTW. May be can you make their list and point out which 
one(s) are for non-print media industry. Or would you have been privy to 
informations reserved to co-Chairs?

Randy gave such reference on the eitf main list which were declined by the 
quoted persons.

>Everyone else here seems to think otherwise.

These is the very nature of a bluff.
That people start saying they support it.
But to tell that "everyone" supports it is part of it.

>of others here who support the draft yet are not mother-tongue English

Deep apologies. This is obviously not what I intended to say. A part has 
been removed during editing (problem in not being an English mother-tongue 
person is that editing is more complex. But this is the very nature of a 
multilingual WG: you should have guess it?)

The text said "So, he knows more about multilingualism from a non-English 
speaker perspective, what is 70% of the demand." This will be corrected in 
copies. And I certainly stand this.

>development of specifications be conducted in a multilingual manner.

By itself this comment documents the pertinence of what you first comment 
opposed. I will not engage in discussing this. I just want you to accept 
that positions like this one are by themselves a problem both in term of 
multilingualism and networking. Your culture of the two subject is ... not 
mine.

>does not make industry, or even US industries, ignorant of

Same comment as above. I do not want to discuss this kind of point. You are 
perfectly entitled to submit them. But you should understand at your level 
of expertise why they may be questionned.

>There is nothing about this draft that limits its focus of application

It would be surprising it would, since its purpose is to apply a solution 
to the web in order to extend it to the entire Internet architecture.

What I find delightful is your capacity to not respond.
But this capacity is not ignored.
Have great vacations.
jfc