Subject: Re: [Ltru] (no subject)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:23:02 -0800

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

>> From: "Marion Gunn" <mgunn at egt dot ie>
>
>> Our petition is only for the _one_ additional script, Doug. I respect 
>> your right to speak for ANSI, but please let nobody exaggerate this 
>> Irish request as a "reason" to reject it (it being only as set out 
>> below).
> ...
>
> RFC 2418 says it best.  Note well the last sentence:
> ...
>   Participation is by individual technical contributors, rather than
>   by formal representatives of organizations.

To be honest, I have no idea where this bit about "speaking for ANSI" 
comes from.  I didn't mention ANSI in my post, I'm not a member of ANSI, 
and I certainly don't claim to speak for them.  I don't know what 
position ANSI has taken on this subject, if any, and I really don't 
care.

When I said in my post, "Do we want to petition ISO 15924/RA..." I meant 
WE, the LTRU Working Group.  Any time I use the word "we" on this list 
without further qualification, that is what I mean.  And if the WG as a 
group is not permitted to make such a petition, then "we" should be 
interpreted as "individual members of the LTRU WG, acting as 
individuals."

I've already stated more than once on this list that the fact that I'm 
an American does not make me a mouthpiece for American policymakers.  My 
opinions are my own.  They are not necessarily those of any government, 
SDO, or commercial interest.  I would appreciate not having to make this 
vacuous and non-productive point again.

Also, I did not have any specific request in mind when I wrote about 
petitioning ISO 15924/RA for more than one code element, and in 
particular I was not singling out Marion's request.  Apparently lots of 
people want to have IPA declared a separate script.  Peter had mentioned 
that there were other Latin-based transcription schemes besides IPA, and 
transcription schemes based on other writing systems (such as Hangul).

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Marion Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:03:14 +0000

On 3 Nov 2006, at 07:23, scríobh Doug Ewell:
> ...
> I don't know what position ANSI has taken on this subject, if any,  
> and I really don't care.

US (ANSI?) currently holds a majority of seats on the ISO 15924/RA AC  
which rejected IPA.

>
> When I said in my post, "Do we want to petition ISO 15924/RA..." I  
> meant WE, the LTRU Working Group.

Fine.

> I would appreciate not having to make this vacuous and non- 
> productive point again

Ensuring internationally-balanced ACs would help - failing that,  
please bear in mind that your own ISO National Body (which your  
address tells me is ANSI) is still in the strongest position to help/ 
hinder all such requests.

> Apparently lots of people want to have IPA declared a separate  
> script..

Apparently.
mg

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 05:19:36 -0800

The members of the 15924 JAC do not represent countries but rather
represent ISO-appointed agencies: 

- ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2
- ISO TC37
- ISO TC46
- ISO 639-2/RA
- ISO 15924/RA

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Marion Gunn [mailto:[email-masked]]

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:52:21 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Marion Gunn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 5:19 AM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] (no subject)
>

Thank you for the clarification.

(Placing co-chair hat on):

Now, can we leave this fascinating (I use the term loosely)
and off-topic discussion and get back to the work at hand?

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:07:36 -0800

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> Of course you're right here. What I was thinking of was that we could 
> draft text in 4646bis that effectively defined a subtag as something 
> proprietary to the LST registry rather than derived from a source 
> standard -- which means the process you describe.

Dissolving the relationship between script subtags and ISO 15924, and 
allowing ietf-languages to allocate its own alpha-4 script subtags 
outside the private-use zone set aside by 15924, simply because there is 
dissatisfaction over the non-allocation of a code element for IPA, 
should not by any stretch of the imagination be considered an option.

I hope this is not what Peter was suggesting, and I merely misunderstood 
him.