Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1067] Last call: clarification between language tags and locales

From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:05:53 +0200

OK, I will feed the troll ...

On 04:23 16/07/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
> > Proposed text - as insert for relation with IESG pending an IESG decision:
> >
> > "[Charter has explicitly said that langtags apply to HTML, XML, CLDR, etc.
> > This WG has identified that this point of the Charter is to be requalified.
> > In the case of CLDR, locales can certainly be described in using Langtags
> > as many other language and country related objects and processes, such as
> > publishing, reading, filtering, censoring, exchanging, communicating,
> > classifying text, book, records, identifying expertise in a language,
> > copyrights, etc. etc. However they also have the capacity to document non
> > language related issues such as colors on a display, sound of a
> > loudspeaker, process speed depending on a process pattern, default network
> > addresses, etc.. They also can be partly patented to support patented
> > processes. As such they may have to be identified in refering to patent
> > references the "x-" escape sequence could support woud it not be limited to
> > 8-alpha/num for retro-compatibility with the never used before patent
> > referencing. The WG hesitates to documents langtags for the CLDR and wishes
> > to exclude langtags considerations from its charter, reserving to locale
> > compilers the decision to use langtags as a part of, or an equivalent to,
> > localtag or not. Should localtags be confirmed as directly belonging the
> > Charter, a locale oriented "l-" final extension will be used where all the
> > subsequent dashes would not be part of the Draft ABNF, in order to accept
> > sequences of the form "-c-" included in some of the references to 
> include.]"
>...
>
>As co-chair:
>(1) For patent-related disclosure requirements, see 
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt
>(2) Specifying locales is clearly beyond our scope.

Difficult to understand in which context these two quotes are made. They 
seem totally out of scope?

>As a technical contributor, I think Jefsey's proposed addition would be 
>counterproductive. reducing rather than improving the document's 
>intellegibility.  Consequently, I strongly oppose its inclusion.

Your priviledge. There must be a clearly expressed consensus, one way or 
another.

 From what I understand you want to be able to use langtags to name 
locales, without expressing any consideration on their structure, nor 
permitting competitors to differentiate their propositions through the 
reference of their IPRs? This is at least what I understand after reading 
this many times. Difficult to get understand what you may oppose since I 
say the same but leaving the IESG to say otherwise. Thx to tell where I 
would be wrong reading you?

An IPR lawyer suggests me: "he wants to keep CLDR in the loop, but does not 
want to see it discussed. If the target is to be able to say 'IANA langtag 
inside' there is a long long long way to go, all the more if there are any 
directly or indirectly claimed right through the locale". A civil right 
fighter says so bad things about all this, that I hesitate between quoting 
him and being expelled, and giving him the way to subscribe and to see him 
setting the WG afire.

Not easy to just stay a network architect.

But even then, look at what Vint Cerf just said .... 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050715/ap_on_hi_te/internet_languages;_ylt=ArzU5bsfXU3xIjN3xHeQIE6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg 
putting the blame on us because it does not work.

jfc

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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:15:14 -0700

Jefsey:

> From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] [psg.com #1067] Last call: clarification betweenlanguage tags and locales
>

Responses to the two major topics in your proposal.

> Your priviledge. There must be a clearly expressed consensus, one way or

No.

> would be wrong reading you?

Language tags and locales are different beasts, despite their superficial
similarities.  Any further discussion of locales is out of scope, in my opinion.

> him and being expelled, and giving him the way to subscribe and to see him

This working group is open to all who wish to participate.
If the people you've conferred with have something to say, let them
speak for themselves.  We welcome comments from folks who have
read the drafts.

...

The referenced URL has nothing to do with language tagging.
The discussion of issue #967 explains why.

Randy

---

From: Erkki Kolehmainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:49:39 +0300

At your request, Mr. Morfin, I specifically agree with Randy's strong 
opposition.

Erkki I. Kolehmainen

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>> As a technical contributor, I think Jefsey's proposed addition would 
>> be counterproductive. reducing rather than improving the document's 
> reference of their IPRs? This is at least what I understand after 
> reading this many times. Difficult to get understand what you may oppose 
> since I say the same but leaving the IESG to say otherwise. Thx to tell 
> where I would be wrong reading you?
> 
> An IPR lawyer suggests me: "he wants to keep CLDR in the loop, but does 
> not want to see it discussed. If the target is to be able to say 'IANA 
> langtag inside' there is a long long long way to go, all the more if 
> there are any directly or indirectly claimed right through the locale". 
> A civil right fighter says so bad things about all this, that I hesitate 
> between quoting him and being expelled, and giving him the way to 
> subscribe and to see him setting the WG afire.
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:11:08 -0700

Hi -

I've reviewed the postings on this topic, and I believe we have a rough consensus
to resolve this issue be removing the following sentence from section 3.6 of the
registry i-d:  "For example, they might be used to define locale identifiers, which
are generally based on language."

So, I'll mark it "resolved" in the tracker at https://rt.psg.com/ (user & passwd "ietf")

If you think this item merits further discussion, please include the issue number
in your subject line.

Randy, ltru co-chair