Subject: RE: [Ltru] Getting back on track

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:37:24 -0800

JFC,

You have not presented a list of comments about the current draft. Neither have you proposed an alternate design. Why should the WG wait for many weeks while you write an individual submission Internet-Draft if you can't be bothered to debate the existing design or propose a new design?

You'll note that before Mark and I wrote the very first draft of what is today the registry document we discussed the design in public. In my opinion, you should do the same thing. If there is a consensus favoring your design, then it can be incorporated into the working group's draft as appropriate.

With regard to your question about my schedule: how about 'never'? I don't have time to help you write your document. I'm busy editing the official draft and engaging in necessary debate on this list. If you want to write a document, you're on your own. Both Mark and I have numerous publicly available documents describing our view of the requirements and our intentions. No doubt if we have objections to your proposal we will enumerate them in the proper way and at the proper time.

With regard to CLDR, which is really Mark's area rather than mine, I will note that the current registry draft has *no* dependency on CLDR, nor should it. Copyright issues in your individual submission are your problem, although I can't imagine any that would arise from referencing an external standard.

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 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> Sent: mardi 22 mars 2005 14:16
> To: Mark Davis
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Getting back on track
> 
> On 22:38 22/03/2005, Mark Davis said:
> >The discussion has meandered around a bit: I'd like to see us get back on
> >track. Here is how I suggest we proceed.
> 
> >Within the next week, anyone who has any issues with the text of the
> current
> >draft does the following:
> >
> >a. Composes a separate message on each issue, with a meaningful title.
> >b. Suggests exact replacement text, with clear instructions on where to
> make
> >the change.
> >c. Describes the pros and cons of making the change.
> >
> >We review by email each request. If there is consensus for if, then we
> >record that. If not, we leave it alone. Once we have processed all the
> >issues, we issue a new draft that incorporates all the changes. We
> circulate
> >that, and if there are no problems with the incorporation of all the
> >changes, then we advance the document.
> 
> As indicated we will not be in a position to issue a draft before at least
> two weeks. It will certainly substantially differ from the current draft.
> And will probably be amended during its further international review. But
> the support of your propositions should be as much possible included in it.
> So this schedule seems OK if the Chairs agree. We should have your
> elements
> in time.
> 
> I have however two missing information:
> - when do you/Addison intend to comment the inputs he required from me, so
> I can organize our schedule?
> - we have discussed nothing on the CLDR aspect. You are the best suited to
> tell us what are the requirements of the CLDR project in the RFC 3066
> context and how we can best address them? I am also obviously concerned
> about the copyright issue as the RFC should indicate that the CLDR is
> public domain. Or we would have to investigate a public domain alternative.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> jfc
> 
> ======================================================
> Standardizing Tags for the Identification of Languages should not be a way
> to standardize languages and to unify the world under a dominant culture.
> ======================================================
> For your convenience:
> RFC 3066: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt?number=3066
> Draft: 	http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-
> 00.txt
> Charter: http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> gmane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru
> If you were Bcced for information and not familliar with the IETF process:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-02.txt
> ======================================================
> Jon Postel (RFC 1591): "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
> what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list
>   as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with
>   the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which
> entities should be and should not be on that list."
> ======================================================
> Brian Carpenter (RFC 1958/3.2): "If there are several ways of doing the
> same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context
> or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the
> same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to.
> Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
> possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements."
> ======================================================
> It seems that what works for countries and ISO 3166 since 1978, should
> apply to languages and to ISO 693.
> ======================================================
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:30:20 -0800

I agree entirely with what Addison said, and want to emphasize that none of
this has any dependence on CLDR whatsoever.

Addison and I have been working on the current draft for quite a while, and
have benefited from feedback from a wide variety of people. If you want to
write your own document, you are of course free to, but I have the feeling
that the direction that you are headed is far outside of the scope of the
current working group's charter. He and I will be focusing on comments on
the current draft.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
To: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>; "Mark Davis"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 15:37
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Getting back on track

JFC,

You have not presented a list of comments about the current draft. Neither
have you proposed an alternate design. Why should the WG wait for many weeks
while you write an individual submission Internet-Draft if you can't be
bothered to debate the existing design or propose a new design?

You'll note that before Mark and I wrote the very first draft of what is
today the registry document we discussed the design in public. In my
opinion, you should do the same thing. If there is a consensus favoring your
design, then it can be incorporated into the working group's draft as
appropriate.

With regard to your question about my schedule: how about 'never'? I don't
have time to help you write your document. I'm busy editing the official
draft and engaging in necessary debate on this list. If you want to write a
document, you're on your own. Both Mark and I have numerous publicly
available documents describing our view of the requirements and our
intentions. No doubt if we have objections to your proposal we will
enumerate them in the proper way and at the proper time.

With regard to CLDR, which is really Mark's area rather than mine, I will
note that the current registry draft has *no* dependency on CLDR, nor should
it. Copyright issues in your individual submission are your problem,
although I can't imagine any that would arise from referencing an external
standard.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:33:46 +0100

>this has any dependence on CLDR whatsoever.

I respond to both authors one shot.
I understand nothing of your responses.

1. I only note that Mark's proposed agenda will permit us to match the 
Charter agenda.
2. I note that after having asked a long work, Addison's responses are in 
the records.
3. I remind that the Charter specifies that: "The RFC 3066 standard for 
language tags has been widely adopted in various protocols and text 
formats, including HTML, XML, and CLDR, as the best means of identifying 
languages and language preferences.". So, I will only quote your responses 
on CLDR and Unicode copyrigths in a waiver about the support of CLDR. Up to 
the IESG to decide if they maintain their Charter consideration on CLDR.

>current working group's charter.

What we all want is a consensus, not a conflict. The conflict comes from 
you desire of exclusiveness when we all want inclusion. Everyone will be 
more that happy to include your propositions to address your needs in a 
general resolution. There will be no consensus otherwise.

>He and I will be focusing on comments on the current draft.

We all expect that.

But it happens that you both are the authoritative experts in closed 
consortia applications the WG Charter makes us to consider (HTML and XML 
for Addison as W3C, and CLDR for Mark as Unicode). It also happens that the 
matter discussed for a standardization in this WG is also subject to a 
current normalization work, and active international thinking, in various 
international technical, academical, societal, economical, political and 
governmental fora we must first evangelize the participants about your work 
(hence the footing of my WG-ltru mails, and the delay in preparing a 
framework). This obviously delays us.

jfc

>â€ŽMark