Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #881] status? last call?

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:41:15 -0700

r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:

>> A person who knows not a single word of Shona and knows nothing of
>> the culture of the Shona-speaking people can still work to develop a
>> tagging mechanism by which Shona text can be indicated by use of the
>> string "sn".
>
> This, I believe, describes perfectly why the Draft doctrine adds to
> the basic error of RFC 3066 attenuated by its lose application (that
> IETF has the capacity to correlate non protocol parameters). Jon
> Postel had clearly established it: this is none of the IANA business.
> Not only it seems that cultural empowerment is ignored by the author
> of this text. But, since the topic here is ISO 3166, it shows a
> remakable confusion between Senegal and Zimbabwe which precisely
> document my point and the difficulty to establish general rules in a
> world made of particulars.

RFC 1766 and 3066 and the current draft use two-letter strings as both
language identifiers and country identifiers.  There are strict
contextual rules for their use: a country code can never appear by
itself in a language tag.

If you are attempting to show that the draft introduces "remarkable
confusion" because the two-letter string "sn" could be either a language
subtag for Shona or a region subtag for Senegal, you have failed
utterly.  You have only proven that it is possible to confuse people by
referring to things out of context.

I am finished with this thread.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:00:31 -0700

In the interest of achieving consensus, I won't argue further about the
exact wording of this section.  I do insist that private-use tags and
subtags in "x-" not be removed from the grammar, or proscribed entirely.
It MUST be legal for consenting adults to generate and interpret
"x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:28:47 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 1:00 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags
>

> "x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.
...

I think we're all agreed on that.  Based on the discussion, I'll leave it to
the editors to pick appropriate words to reflect our rough consensus that
private use tags and subtags should remain in the document, but there should
be a "health warning" regarding the risks associated with using them.  Several
alternative wordings have been offered, and I think the feedback on the mailing
list will provide sufficient guidance to the editors to form text we can live
with.

With that, I'll mark this issue resolved.  If someone finds the words they
choose unacceptable, we can re-open the issue.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:58:14 +0200

>"x-this" and "en-x-that" in the privacy of their homes.

I think confusion exists here. No one has ever considered that x-tags were 
to be associated to adult extentions of a language. To the countrary one of 
the applications of the x-tags in the "en" context you quote is precisely 
to be able to use tags of the form of "en-x-kids" that could be made 
mandatory for partental protection on "kid.us" namespace for example.

If there is a confusion by a common US reader here, I recommand that some 
examples are provided for further user guidance.
jfc

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:28:09 +0200

>list will provide sufficient guidance to the editors to form text we can live

I am obliged to come back on this. If the editors are to form a text we can 
live with, I think we also could. And if cannot, we should make clear in a 
note, or through a consensus of this group, that it has never been 
considered that "x-" tags could ever have to do with pornography (or 
exclusion as some of comments I received during the ICANN meeting).

>choose unacceptable, we can re-open the issue.

I reopen the issue, not necessarily on the text itself but about the 
guidance given to the editor.
jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:51:26 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe)Private Use Tags
>

> examples are provided for further user guidance.

I trust that your response is as tongue-in-cheek as Doug's.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:01:03 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1061] eliminate (or proscribe) Private Use Tags
>

If you really believe issue #1061 needs to be re-opened,
please identify the specific text in the draft you object to and
the text you would propose in its place.

Randy, ltru co-chair