Subject: [Ltru] add internationalization considerations to initial registry draft?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:45:04 +0200 (GMT+02:00)

Hi -

It's not clear to me how one would apply the recommendations of RFC 2277
in this case.  Could you suggest some meaningful text to go in the 
internationalizations considerations section you request?  Unless such text adds
significant technical value to the document, I would argue against making such
a change at this late stage in the process.  Since the only use of the contents
of this document is to initialize the IANA registry, I believe any internationalization
considerations would belong in the registry document, rather than here.

I note that both the abstract and the document text are quite clear that they
are talking about the IANA registry, so I believe the editor faithfully applied the
change I (not Addison, as you write) suggested.

On the issue of ISO 11173 alignment, this issue is OLD and rejected.  Reopening
at this time has not been justified.

Randy, ltru co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Sent: Aug 4, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Second WG last call on  draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt ends 2005-08-08

No comment on this text which lists typographer related information.

Except that it is not defined by any RFC, that its Informational status 
does not seem to fit with its normative quality (except if the main Draft 
only claims Informational status what would be appropriate, as describing 
an application related group intents). I note that Addison's change in 
abstract to make sure it is only IANA related, has not be copied into the 
text of the document, which still can be ISO 11173 conformant. It has no 
Internationlisation considerations section what is innapropriate as it 
should document why it is not internationalised.

jfc

At 11:11 04/08/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>I see the announcement for the availability of the revised initial 
>registry draft has
>been sent out.  (Thanks to Doug and to the Secretariat for the quick 
>turnaround!)
>
>We'll have a BRIEF second WG last call on this document, and I'd like to limit
>the scope of this last call to verifying that changes agreed during
>the first WG last call are properly reflected by the text.  (Of course, if 
>anyone
>finds a substantial technical error, we'd like to hear about it now rather 
>than
>waiting for the IETF last call.)  This last call will end Monday, August 
>8.  The
>draft is available at
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-03.txt
>
>I'd like those who take the time to look at this document to post a message,
>either to the ltru WG mailing list or to the co-chairs, indicating that 
>they've
>read it and whether they are OK with it.  We need this information for the
>paperwork we need to submit along with our request to the IESG to consider
>it for publication as an Informational RFC.
>
>Randy, ltru co-chair
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 06:55:18 +0200

Dear Randy,

>considerations would belong in the registry document, rather than here.

I suppose you are right.
But it is rather odd to document all the languages and the scripts of the 
world in ASCII without explaning why. Some people could think it is because 
of a natural superiority of the Anglicanus Mens.

>change I (not Addison, as you write) suggested.

Oh! I know that you asked to make sure you would block one of my remarks, 
just in case. Addison said he did it. What I say is that the correction is 
in the Abstract only. The IANA exclusive is not repeated in the text.

>at this time has not been justified.

I just wanted to make sure you would confirm it, because the text still 
could be construed as permitting such an alignment. May be this could be 
indicated. I suggest the following text:

"This document establishes an independent registry. This registry is not 
intended to be related to any registry, database or content not documented 
in this document."

I suppose this is what you want to say.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:29:53 +0200

Randy Presuhn wrote:

> It's not clear to me how one would apply the recommendations
> of RFC 2277 in this case.

We have I18N considerations, twice:  the whole document, and
especially chapter 7 "character set considerations".  So far I
thought that's obvious.

2277 says SHOULD be "I18N considerations", but for our text
"character set considerations" nails it more precisely.  Bye