Subject: Re: [Ltru] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-05.txt

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 23:05:44 -0600

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> -1 for the whole extlang, macrolanguage, syntax change fiasco!

I don't like some of the changes I've had to make since
draft-4645bis-00, either.  But that's why I'm so vehement about
referring to myself as an "editor" and not an "author," because
draft-4645bis is supposed to reflect what the WG has decided upon, not
what Doug likes.

Speaking of this, I note that the "canned" RFC references that we use in
xml2rfc:

<!ENTITY rfc4646 PUBLIC ""
"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4646.xml">
...
&rfc4646;

don't list Addison and Mark and me as editors, which I think is an error
since this is clearly marked in RFCs 4645 through 4647.  I wish someone
would fix this.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:48:31 +0100

Hi Doug

Yes, this was not a swipe at the Editor and I know how hard you have worked
on this but I feel this whole extlang/macrolanguage thing has got out of
hand and it is all looking pretty messy.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 09 May 2008 06:06
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-05.txt
>
> draft-4645bis-00, either.  But that's why I'm so vehement
> about referring to myself as an "editor" and not an "author,"
> because draft-4645bis is supposed to reflect what the WG has
> decided upon, not what Doug likes.
>
> don't list Addison and Mark and me as editors, which I think
> is an error since this is clearly marked in RFCs 4645 through
> 4647.  I wish someone would fix this.
>
> --
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ^
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:07:16 +0200

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 09:48:31AM +0100,
 Debbie Garside <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 59 lines which said:

> I feel this whole extlang/macrolanguage thing has got out of hand
> and it is all looking pretty messy.

What is messy? The work of LRTU in 4646bis? The ISO 639-3 standard? Or
simply the situation in human languages?

As an engineer, I feel that the world of languages is too complicated
:-) and that no modeling will be perfect. We should stop chasing the
perfect solution and accepting the one we have (in
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-13).
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru