Subject: Re: [Ltru] Support of ISO 639 (was: Survey Tool pre-alpha)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:08:42 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> I find very little in this thread germane to the ltru working group.

That's right, we need to leave the list open for all the on-topic 
discussions that have been going on lately?

Philippe asserted some things on the public Unicode list, showing 
variously (a) that he wasn't familiar with the IETF/RFC process, (b) 
that he wasn't familiar with some of the distinctions well known to this 
group, such as between collections and macrolanguages, and (c) that he 
may not have understood the relationship between various parts of ISO 
639, referring to 639-5 as being "incompatible" with 639-1 and 639-2.

I thought that it would be more productive to point him to this mailing 
list, where these knowledge gaps could be filled in.  IMHO this serves 
the interests of the LTRU project better than leaving interested parties 
in the dark while making sure the list stays free of traffic.

> If you have *specific* technical objections to the current drafts
> (which have completed WG last call - we're just waiting for the
> updates to appear so we can hand them off to the IESG)

My update is submitted.  I waited long enough for "tomorrow" for the 
4646bis draft to be submitted so that I could do my best to coordinate 
the two.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:33:17 -0800

Hmmm... I'm not sure I like the idea of including informing the masses (or even individuals) as one of the purposes of this WG list -- it doesn't exactly move us forward in completing items in the charter, does it?

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 12:09 PM

[snip]