Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1073] Last call: IANA adaptation of theUN disclaimer

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:48:16 -0700

> From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]]

> If I demonstrated it, it would not be an opinion.

Since you have not demonstrated that ISO or UN standards are being used
contrary the their designed intent, your statement to that effect is
mere opinion. And your misconstrual of what Randy had said regarding our
use of ISO and UN standards borders, IMO, on innuendo.

> > > None of these authors has intended to see established a published
> > correlation between languages, scripts and countries.
> >
> >On the contrary, the ISO 639 standards explicitly state...

> I will not claim you "distort" what I said. I will only ask you to
reread
> it and to consider if your response is adequate

Yes, my response is adequate. You said that the authors of the relevant
ISO and UN standards have not "intended to see established a published
correlation between languages, scripts and countries." My response
demonstrates that the is simply false.

> Also, I suggest that do not use ISO 639-3 and ISO 639-4 except when
> refering to the current status of the debate. We will reach nothing
> conclusive if you do that.

I referred to ISO 639-4 precisely because you mentioned it first in this
context:

"None of these authors has intended to see established a published
correlation between languages, scripts and countries. This point is
risen in ISO 639-4..."

I will be happy to stop mentioning ISO 639-4 if you will stop mentioning
it. But if you continue to make incorrect statements regarding that or
other parts of ISO 639, I will consider myself perfectly free to mention
whichever of those standards and set the record straight.

> > > - there is a clear opposition of mine to this on ethical and
technical
> > > grounds. And a clear opposition, should the document be agreed, on
> > > legal grounds which will be addressed at IANA level. This strictly
> > > belongs to the
> > > Charter which is to establish a Registry in correcting RFC 3066.
> >
> >Sticking to the point, this concern on your part does not support
your
> >claim that there has been intent to tamper with code sets defined in
ISO
> >or UN standards.
> 
> I am sorry but if "a differing organization of data...

Your response to my comment addresses a different topic.

> , the omission of some
> elements, the addition of other elements, and a differing scope of
> application" does not mean "to play around with" the concerned data, I
am
> lost about the intent.

Only you can know what you mean by "play around with"; but that is not
what we have been discussing. Rather, we have been discussing your
characterization of Randy's statement --

> >False.  If we were imitating the structure of the ISO or UN
directories,
> >such a claim might almost be plausible.  With a differing
organization of
> >data, the omission of some elements, the addition of other elements,
and 
> >a differing scope of application, any claim of copyright infringement
> >would be rather far-fetched.
> 
> Thank you for so exactly describing your intent to tamper with the 
> intended usage of the codes.

and your subsequent statement

> - there is a precise description of the intent to use ISO and UN codes
> in a
> different way than their initial purpose, and my opinion, in an
> opposed way
> to the intent of their authors.

Randy's statement in no way implied "tampering with the intended usage
of codes". You have in no way demonstrated that we are using any of the
codes in a manner different from their initial purpose of the intent of
the authors of the relevant standards.

As for your being lost regarding the intent of this working group, it
has been clear for months that you have significant objections with many
of the decisions of this working group. In several of those cases, it
has been evident that either you have not agreed with some of the basic
intents of this working group, or you have not understood what those
basic intents are. For instance, you could not have asked that we allow
tags containing "." unless you either disagreed with or did not
understand the basic intent that this working group has had since
inception that backward compatibility with RFC 3066 be maintained. I
don't know to what extent you understand but disagree and to what extent
you simply don't understand. But it would not surprise me to learn that
you were lost about the intent.

Please stop misconstruing what Randy or others say. That's all I feel
the need to say. Any further discussion would not, I think, contribute
to the goals of this WG, so I will not respond further on this thread.

Peter Constable

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