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

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 15:32:56 -0700

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

> >Mr. Morfin appears to be engaging in tactics of intimidation. I
consider
> >this far from good faith to be a contributing member within a working
> >group.

> If you consider a contributing member as an applauding member I am
> certainly not.

Nobody has said you must applaud. Most of the people here have
contributed on occasions when they disagreed with proposed text.

> address the Charter. Points not considering the Charter are purely
> disruptive IMO. This confusion about locales enters into that
category.
> CLDR _is_ in the Charter.

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about adoption of text you
derived from the UN site; it has nothing to do with locales or CLDR.

> You should know after all these months that I am not intimidated
easily.

Nor anybody else here.

>  > >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.
> >
> >This is utter misconstrual and innuendo.
> 
> I think you have not at all understood the problem. There is
absolutely no
> innuendo. Things are very clear and open:
> 
> - 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.

You have not demonstrated this in the slightest. 

> 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 that
applications may find utility in using ISO 639 identifiers in
conjunction with ISO 3166 identifiers. (ISO/DIS 639-3 also makes
reference to ISO 15924 script identifiers.) Quoting from clause 4.4 of
ISO 639-1:2002:

"Language identifiers according to this part of ISO 639 may be combined
with identifiers according to ISO 3166 to denote the area (country or
subdivision of a country) in which a term, phrase or language is used."

See likewise clause 4.4 of ISO 639-2:1998, clause 8.1 of ISO/CD 639-4
(wrt ISO 3166) and clause 8.3 of the same (wrt ISO 15924).

> - 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.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:27:19 +0200

>contributed on occasions when they disagreed with proposed text.

Dear Peter,
As you note it below, this thread is following a contribution of mine.

> > categories. CLDR _is_ in the Charter.
>

Your remarks using this threat was opposing another contribution I made on 
CLDR.

> > You should know after all these months that I am not intimidated

I am glad of that. So, why not to continue considering the things seriously.

> >   in a different way than their initial purpose, and my opinion, in an
> >   opposed way to the intent of their authors.
>

If you refer to the different way, this was expressed. If you refer to the 
opposed way, this is true. If I demonstrated it, it would not be an opinion.

> > None of these authors has intended to see established a published 
> correlation between languages, scripts and countries.
>

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, as in the previous case 
you did not answer. We are again in the case where I say something general 
and you respond on a small specific. There is a major difference between an 
application which "may do a particular correlation" and a standard which 
publish a general correlation.

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.

> > legal grounds which will be addressed at IANA level. This strictly
> > belongs to the

I am sorry but if "a differing organization of data, 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.

jfc