Subject: RE: [Ltru] Action items on draft-initial?

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:35:00 -0700

>> What about the normative/informative issue?  I don't remember any 
>> agreement as to whether the source standards whose code elements were 
>> used in the initial registry should be normative, and as I said, I 
>> would rather leave that judgment to others.
>...
>
>I believe the only normative reference in the initial registry draft should >be the reference to the registry draft, since the latter is the only one of >the references that is required to "implement" the initial registry.

It really doesn't matter ultimately. 

Draft-registry does normatively reference the ISO standards as normative sources for subtag values. 

The instructions in Section 2 of draft-initial refer to the ISO standards explicitly. The information taken from these standards by draft-initial is normative. Thus it would be reasonable to put a normative reference to the ISO standards into draft-initial. But since it doesn't really make any difference the resulting document. We can make (keep?) the references as informative and achieve identical results.

Addison

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

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:42:00 -0700

That's what I was saying. We don't need 'normative closure'.

Suppose standard A makes a normative reference to standard B, and B makes a
normative reference to C. It is unnecessary (and counterproductive) for A to
make a normative reference to C because of this. That is, it would only be
necessary for A to make a normative reference to C if it needed to
*independent of the requirements of B*.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:35
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Action items on draft-initial?

>I believe the only normative reference in the initial registry draft should
>be the reference to the registry draft, since the latter is the only one of
>the references that is required to "implement" the initial registry.

Draft-registry does normatively reference the ISO standards as normative
sources for subtag values.

The instructions in Section 2 of draft-initial refer to the ISO standards
explicitly. The information taken from these standards by draft-initial is
normative. Thus it would be reasonable to put a normative reference to the
ISO standards into draft-initial. But since it doesn't really make any
difference the resulting document. We can make (keep?) the references as
informative and achieve identical results.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:55:10 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:35 AM
...

Yes, because to implement some of its procedures one needs to go to the ISO
standards.  But to initialize the registry from the initial registry draft, those portions
of the registry draft are not necessary, so even the indirect reference is not normative.

Even if it were, making such a change would be like "flattening" nested #include
references in a C program.  Though it might seem like a good idea at first, it
quickly turns into a maintenance headache (especially if there are #define/#ifdef
ordering issues), and can ultimately obscure more than it illuminates.

Randy

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:59:06 +0200

>ordering issues), and can ultimately obscure more than it illuminates.

All this is confuse to me; It seems it is confuse to authors. It will be 
confuse to the users.

At this stage, what seems clear to me is that ISO provides all the 
necessary ISO 11179 conformant information necessary to qualify in a non 
biased and open way the broadcasted, received and networked lingualised 
relations - differences that the WG-ltru did  not even consider. It is 
clear to me that the WG-ltru still debates medium scripted texts instead of 
screen/printer rendering of architexts as used by Information and 
Communications Technologies. It is clear to me that the WG-ltru did not 
even allude to the lingual exchanges communities, nor to their cultural and 
human implications, nor to their needs and usages as used in a network 
environment. It is clear to me that the WG-ltru did not want to conform to 
ISO 11179, nor to consider Multilingual aspects, nor Internet protocols and 
IETF archietctural various contexts, etc.  to produce clear, defined 
documentation conforming to the ISO documents it refers to, or to describe 
the differences, etc.

I am therefore obliged to consider that all this work is extermely confuse 
and has definitely no interest for the Internet, even if it is likely that 
some could use it. I am therefore sorry to say that this WG-ltru failed the 
expectations of all the users I know and mine's, in spite of all my efforts 
and the efforts of severals. Since this WG-ltru wants to present this Draft 
to the IESG, I can only contribute with the two following propositions:

- to replace "replace RFC 3066" by "complement RFC 3066" (I note that in 
spite of the repetition of that proposition, including during the WGLC, it 
was never discussed nor hummed) because the proposed document does not 
fulfil the WG-ltru charter. If that was done, the Draft would help in 
restricting the RFC 3066 politically controverted usage, to the benefit of 
W3C applications users and commercial ventures which may want to   use it.
- to remove the limitations on the "x-" escape sequence. The wording of 
this WG-ltru shows they only try to enforce an exclusive.

I also repeat for clarity sake that the current commercial and Open Source 
projects or development I know of are based upon:

1. free format of x-tags (tags starting with the "x-" sequence)
2. ISO codes, by nature conforming or intending to conform with ISO 11179 
(naming, updates, metadata, registry management, etc.)
3. referents and contexts defined by networked languages SDOs.
4. a determination to appeal to IESG, IANA, GAC, WSIS in the case this 
Draft was accepted as an RFC without the modification above.

So, this WG-ltru cannot claim it ignored it, and that it does not purposely 
oppose users existing or intended practices and running code.

I also want to call a last time on the members of this WG-ltru affinity 
group. Multilingualism, and Multilingual Internet, due to the positions of 
UNESCO, UN, WSIS, WGIG, MINC, EU, WIPO, USG, NICSO, etc. many States, 
cultural authorities, academic work, industry development, ccTLDs policy, 
local internet communities and ISOC Chapters, and recently Vint Cerf for 
ICANN, will increasingly be a matter of top consideration. Your intended 
use of the IANA registry, in the way you propose, without the 
considerations you refused or did not even discuss, will result into a 
disinterest by concerned lingual parties. This will also result from its 
exclusive ASCII basis, and of its deliberate decision of exclusion 
of  x-tags. It will be considered as a political and commercial bias, and 
as a technically inadequate proposition. Should the IANA registry be really 
implemented and promoted, ISO based Open Source and other commercial, civil 
or public solutions will be made available, some as an open alternative to 
IANA servers. It would be likely that users would split: you would have 
dramatically cooperated to the balkanisation of the Internet. You, and the 
companies you represent, will get the resulting negative exposure: I am not 
sure this is what you and they want. I still wander why you want so much to 
harm the Internet, and to oppose their users? I find this sad.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:51:43 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:59 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Last contribution - was: Action items on draft-initial?
...
> All this is confuse to me; It seems it is confuse to authors. It will be

I haven't seen any indication that the document's sole editor (Doug) is confused.
He asked for guidance, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for an editor to do.

As for users, page 1 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt says:

   This memo defines the initial contents of the Language Subtag
   Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages.
   Since the contents of this memo only serve as a starting point for
   the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo in lieu of the
   registry.

Consequently, the IANA personnel initializing the registry are really
the only likely users of this document.  Anyone else using it has gone
outside its express scope of application, and thus, from my point of
view, qualifies as "pre-confused".  :-)

> this WG-ltru shows they only try to enforce an exclusive.

You've raised these issues before.  The rough consensus on how to handle
each was quite clear.  You may, of course, appeal under the terms of RFC 2026
section 6.5.1, and request that the AD direct us to discuss your requests further.

> oppose users existing or intended practices and running code.

Indeed, your comments have been discussed repeatedly and at excessive
length.  In some cases, they have resulted in changes or clarifications.  In
other cases, the WG's consensus has been to do something else.   You may,
of course, appeal under the terms of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1.

> harm the Internet, and to oppose their users? I find this sad.

Specific technical comments, especially those proposing specific replacement
text, are welcome.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:10:59 +0200

Dear Randy,

>He asked for guidance, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for an editor 

I am glad to hear there is only one editor. BTW, would you mean Doug Ewell?

>    the registry, it is inappropriate to use this memo in lieu of the

???
Do you mean that the meaning of entries varies if it is read by someone or 
someone else?

>view, qualifies as "pre-confused".  :-)

Thanks to indicate the contempts for the users. IETF defines who an RFC 
user is. We already had "end users" and now "pre-confused users". When 
"post mortem users"?

>section 6.5.1, and request that the AD direct us to discuss your requests 

Thank you to make this statement. Just get prepared to explain how a few 
participating members make a rough consensus against practice and running 
code. And the hummings on these two points. You may recall that these are 
roughly the two points the preceding version of the Draft failed. And this 
one will also. I do not understand this so big desire of exclusive and 
exclusion to the point to kill your own work. Unless obviously you agree 
with me that this Draf hurts the Internet and want to see it die.

>of course, appeal under the terms of RFC 2026 section 6.5.1.

Thank you for this statement. It shows that you repeatedly decided to 
ignore and oppose reality. Thank you to note that in cases my allegded 
excessive length has eventually lead to changes and clarifications.

>Specific technical comments, especially those proposing specific replacement

I proposed two replacements if you really want to propose that text.
I am sorry we are to keep being opposed.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:07:21 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Last contribution - was: Action items on draft-initial?
>

> I am glad to hear there is only one editor. BTW, would you mean Doug Ewell?

I don't see any other editor listed in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-initial-02.txt
and we certainly haven't named anyone else as editor.
You *have* read it, haven't you?  Or do you just ask
to waste time?

> Do you mean that the meaning of entries varies if it is read by someone or

No.  Simply that it is inappropriate to use that memo in lieu of the registry.
The only reason to publish it as an RFC at all is that that is the preferred
mechanism for delivering this kind of information to IANA.  The document
is of almost no interest to anyone else.  The paragraph I quoted makes
this abundantly clear.

> user is. We already had "end users" and now "pre-confused users". When

I fail to see your point.  Someone who cannot understand "it is inappropriate
to use this memo in lieu of the registry" has no business poking around
in RFCs.  Someone who willfully uses it despite the warning is worse than
"confused."

> with me that this Draf hurts the Internet and want to see it die.

No.

Randy