> From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2. I never objected the scripting-ID. I objected that it was not given the > same importance as language and country codes. I plead (and act) for 25 > years for the support of authoritative distinctions among users contexts. > But I am not paid by a big employer. I don't have time to offer many comments. Let me say for the benefit of people that don't know much about me that up to a year ago I was not paid by a big employer, but was a volunteer working for a non-profit organization, SIL International, and it was in *that* context that I became involved in the development of ISO 639 (including being SIL liaison to the ISO 639-RA/JAC, a member of the US TAG for TC 37, and project editor for ISO 639-3), a contributor to the development of RFC 3066 and a regular participant in the activity of the IETF-languages list. > There is NO consensus in the community and huge technical, > societal, economical and political concerns. Because one does not > understand what the Draft wants to achieve, for who and how. The main > request is to clarify. There are no real objections (except to the paucity > of the proposition) but concerns. I haven't seen many requests for clarification. If that is people are wanting, then I think the authors, or others, can provide that, if it's made clear at what points clarification is needed. > > > It would be very helpful, to me at least, if you or he could > > > identify the specific context in which such tags would be used > > > and are required. The examples should ideally be of > > > IETF-standard software, not proprietary products. > > You respond none. Just an application level problem. I was asked to respond with examples that pertain to IETF-standard software, so that's what I did. > >I've used Chinese as one example, but there are many other cases, some > >familiar to many and some less well known.... > Full agreement. But this is to be done through an open and inclusive > semantic, not on an exclusive first come first serve registration basis. Which is why one of the aims of the proposed draft is to fully incorporate script IDs as sanctioned sub-tags rather than leaving individual parties to make ad hoc registrations for such distinctions. > Why do you want there would be an exclusive _unique_ matching algorithm? I have never said I want that. > We had a long talk at the end of the August Paris meeting at AUF over ISO > 639-2 and the need to aggregate language ID, scripting ID, usage > description, authoritative sources and also country codes and on the > complexity to take into account "sub-code" and private codes and to add > accidental or new descriptors in order to document venacular ways of > speaking, thinking, talking. Obviously it was a private discussion with a > few people sharing the same ideas ... May be you were there (we were the > last to leave the room and the building). I don't know. I don't recall this discussion, and I can't put a face to your name. I know I was not last to leave the room. Obviously I have ideas on those issues. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
