Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:57:36 -0700

How many times do I have to write, troll, that my work here is unaffiliated with my work at W3C (or anywhere else)?

I do not "sign" my work here as a "member" of the W3C. The only person on this list that purports to represent more than one person is YOU. You claim to represent organizations as well as the opinions of others. I claim to represent only myself.

Frostily,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of r&d afrac
> Sent: 2005?8?6? 14:52
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
> 
> May be should I ask now a question I always wanted to ask. Addison co-
> signs
> his Draft on language tags as a member of the W3C. He explained well the
> problems he faces with XML (Mark did not explain the ones he has with CLDR
> locales, and I have been prevented to explain those I have with the
> DNS-locales).
> 
> So, we have an Internet standard process oriented BCP Draft, by the W3C
> generously imposed to all the Internet protocols, to document the language
> sub-class of tag object class.
> 
> There is a document approved as an RFC on the Editor's desk which
> describes
> "the tag URIs also known as 'tags'", i.e. that tag class. This document is
> authored by gentlemen from HP and W3C. This Draft by gentlemen from IBM
> and
> W3C. This RFC soon to be published (draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt) is the
> Internet document of reference we used as a source of inspiration when
> documenting the "x-tags", trying to keep two W3C Drafts consistent.
> Everyone observed it is not that it is not easy.
> 
> The Kindberg/Hawke RFC, approved by the IESG, has still be less considered
> by this WG than the IESG Charter. It is however as well worded as the
> Draft
> on some points. So after having tried with the "x-" proposition, we
> followed Lee Guillam and disengaged through the "0-" escaped sequence. But
> technically it is unlikely that Draft be accepted if the "x-" does not
> support Kindberg RFC inheritance.
> 
> The difference between the two documents are:
> - the Kindberg/Hawke RFC has been approved, is open and tag class generic,
> respects ISO 1179, and includes a disclaimer that it may  not reflect the
> views and opinion of the W3C
> - the Draft has already failed two Last Calls, is constrained and limited
> to tag sub-class, is not interested in aligning on ISO 11179 and does not
> include an IESG or W3C disclaimer.
> 
> The problem is that the ABNFs of the two documents (as it was opposed to
> me) are not compatible. The "x-" format I proposed was Kindberg/Hawke
> conformant, but was denied by the W3C author of the Draft.
> 
> There is therefore a need for the Draft either to include a disclaimer
> that
> the "W3C language tag" does not represent the views and opinion of the W3C
> anymore than the Kindberg/Hawke, or that to the contrary the ambiguity of
> the Kindberg/Hawker RFC is now clarify and the Draft do represent the
> views
> and opinions of the W3C and Unicode, at least for the part of the tag
> class
> documenting languages.
> 
> Otherwise it is likely that the Draft will be opposed the IESG approved
> definition of a "tag". The solution seems obvious. It is simply to modify
> the "x-" ABNF as:
> 
> "encapsulates a RFC X- ABNF conformant tag"
> 
> and to remove the adverse language in 2.2.
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:52:27 +0200

Dear Addison,
??? Why to be aggressive when I ask a question that will be asked at IESG 
Last Call? I did not rise it before not to confuse the debate. But you will 
now have to be ready to address it.

At 23:57 06/08/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>I do not "sign" my work here as a "member" of the W3C.

This affirmation seems signed:
"Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group"
(is from the troll you signaled it?)

>The only person on this list that purports to represent more than one 
>person is YOU. I claim to represent only myself.

As far as I am concerned I certainly do not make that claim. Transparency 
is of the essence. This is why I switched to an organisation e-mail address.

You respond that you publish in the same conditions as S. Hawke. Perfect 
with me. Question is only: why don't you use the same disclaimer, while you 
plant a conflicting proposition in his garden? Would you think your 
proposition is better and you should "win" (You know I disagree with the 
attitude "S. Hawke's tags winning over Addison Philips' tags, or the other 
way around").

Or is there a good reason?

I only long clear, stable, efficient, scalable IETF tags we all can use in 
peace. This is a legitimate demand I will repeat again and again until I 
get them: this is what the IETF is about. I certainly agree that your 
proposition has merits for people thinking they need it. This is why the 
interest of the Internet community is that you find a way to agree with the 
Kindberg/Hawke RFC. I proposed two solutions: you may have an other one. 
Just expose it and if the WG supports it and if the IESG agrees it fits the 
RFC on tags they approved, it will be accepted.

Or you may document how your Draft partly or totally obsoletes their RFC.

Either way is OK with me. But conflicting confusion cannot be.

>You claim to represent organizations as well as the opinions of others.

This is my job to report and document users needs and problems , and I am 
trusted to bring solutions. I do not represent "opinions" however. I deal 
with facts. I have or share personal opinions and propositions. When they 
are supported by some and becomes running code, solutions or decisions, 
they become facts.

Instead of opposing/despising your users, may I suggest you listen to them? 
I am very patient and I do not worry too much about people being hurting. 
What counts is a good result. I will always be available to kindly help you 
in that area. But I am sorry, I cannot support what blocks my R&D, opposes 
RFC we use and people tell me they do not want.

All the best.
jfc

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:58:43 -0400

r&d afrac scripsit:

> get them: this is what the IETF is about. 

This is a clear statement of the author's intent to spam this mailing
list and other IETF mailing lists until he gets his way.  It should be
obvious to all that this will never happen.

Since there is at least a good possibility that this WG will continue
for some time, through the matching draft, RFC 3066ter (ISO 639-3), and
perhaps even quater (ISO 639-6), I see no reason at all why we should
continue to put up with this treatment.

I call for an immediate warning under BCP 94, to be followed by suspension
under BCP 94 and if necessary under BCP 83 as well.

-- 
John Cowan  [email-masked]  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand
on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability.
Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land,
to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.
        --Thomas Henry Huxley