--On 3. januar 2005 07:40 -0800 EKR ekr@rtfm.com wrote:
I don't think that anyone is saying that. However, AFAIK there's
in fact no rule prohibiting IESG/IAB members from being directly
paid by IETF--not that that's a likely event.
At at least one point in the IETF's history, there was a nomcom
Dassa wrote:
| -What kind of city with a population of 75,000 has hotel
| accommodations for 2000 people unless it's a tourist Mecca
| and likely expensive and overbooked?
A lot of regional centres are geared to large numbers of tourists/visitors.
As for expensive and overbooked, I find most large
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, stability, and
extensions
Date: 2005-01-01 19:56
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Lilly blilly at erols dot com wrote:
Domain names and
language tags are different types of names, used for
Harald,
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 10:28, ext Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 3. januar 2005 07:40 -0800 EKR ekr@rtfm.com wrote:
I don't think that anyone is saying that. However, AFAIK there's
in fact no rule prohibiting IESG/IAB members from being directly
paid by IETF--not that that's a
--On Tuesday, 04 January, 2005 09:38 -0500 Bruce Lilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One is not. Domain names are strings of characters; only
incidentally do they spell out one or more words in one or
more languages. I doubt whether the names Google, Yahoo,
and AltaVista can be pinned down as
This whole question of what 'matches' is subtle. Consider the case
when I have a document that has variant content by language (e.g.
different sound tracks), and the user indicates a set of preferred
languages. If the content has de-CH and fr-CH (swiss german and
french), and a default en
John C Klensin scripsit:
Returning to the DNS/IDN situation, ICANN has created a
recommendation for all TLDs, and a requirement on at least some
gTLDs, that languages not be mixed within a label and for
registration and use of tables similar to those recommended by
RFC 3743.
This
Small typo: In my previous response I referred to RFC 1766 when I meant
RFC 3066. Too many documents open at once, sorry.
Ned
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
At 9:14 AM -0800 1/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This whole question of what 'matches' is subtle. Consider the case
when I have a document that has variant content by language (e.g.
different sound tracks), and the user indicates a set of preferred
languages. If the content has de-CH and fr-CH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
I know of two other wrinkles in the RFC 1766 world:
Are you aware that RFC 1766 has been obsolete for four years now?
(2) SGN- requires special handling, in that SGN-FR and SGN-EN are in fact
sufficiently different languages that a primary tag match should not
ruled out because it mixes English and German?
Sorry I can't resist: like in EdelWeb.fr
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Dave Singer scripsit:
Yes, I picked off an easy example for which the 'matching' section of
the draft didn't seem adequate. This really is a tar-pit, of course.
Indeed it is, which is why the draft provides only one simple algorithm
(described as the most common implementation, which it is)
From: Dave Singer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The whole question of what is a language, a variant or dialect of a
language, or a suitable substitute for a language, would benefit some
thought in any tagging scheme, though I agree the problem is not
generally soluble.
These are questions that
Dear Peter,
I am sorry to comment this again. But this is a Last Call over a private
proposition. There is no other forum to comment this key document for the
future of the Internet. There is also no other forum to correct what you
say on me.
I whish to recall that the main issues are the
At 18:06 04/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
Returning to the DNS/IDN situation, ICANN has created a
recommendation for all TLDs, and a requirement on at least some
gTLDs, that languages not be mixed within a label and for
registration and use of tables similar to those recommended by
RFC 3743.
At 05:39 04/01/2005, Franck Martin wrote:
Don't forget also: It is FULL of French!
And very upset Frenchies if the IESG accepts the
Draft-Phillips-language-08/9.txt as a standard to be. I suppose there could
be a premiere: street riots opposing an IETF meetings :-) This would
warm-up the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Cowan
The whole question of what is a language, a variant or dialect of a
language, or a suitable substitute for a language, would benefit
some
thought in any tagging scheme, though I agree the problem is
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
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 17:49 -0800 Christian Huitema
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you please pursue this rather technical discussion on a
specialized list, rather than the main IETF list?
Christian,
It seems to me that we are in a bit of a procedural bind on
this. The spec has
| -Original Message-
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| On Behalf Of Mark Prior
| Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 12:22 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
| Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
|
| Dassa wrote:
|
| | -What kind of
Thus spakeDassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| -What kind of small city of such population has a large
| corporation willing to sponsor an IETF event?
| -How does making a big event take place in a small town help
| attendance?
Large corporations also deal with the regional cities, PR coverage
would
Comments inline as appropriate.
| -Original Message-
| From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 5:33 AM
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John C Klensin';
| 'IETF Discussion'
| Subject: Re: Excellent choice for summer meeting location!
--On Tuesday, 04 January, 2005 12:52 -0500 John Cowan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John C Klensin scripsit:
Returning to the DNS/IDN situation, ICANN has created a
recommendation for all TLDs, and a requirement on at least
some gTLDs, that languages not be mixed within a label and for
John C Klensin scripsit:
I suppose there are always exceptions. In particular, the
recommendations of RFC 3743 are about tables of characters, not
dictionary lookup.
I know that -- I did read 3743 first. But in that case, whatever did
you mean by ICANN has created a recommendation [...]
On 4-jan-05, at 19:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
A sponsor might find that hotels and meeting rooms may be cheaper in a
smaller city, but that has to be balanced against the cost of
attendees'
flights, availability of venues, and other suitability factors.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown
The characterization of this draft as controversial because two or three
people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence presented
of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect. Let's let
the IESG decide on that.
Asking the IESG to abandon the Last
Dassa wrote:
Actually I find it hard to understand Adelaide having issues with
accommadation unless there was another major event at the same time. How
does it cope with motor sport events, they used to hold some there didn't
they?
Hotels don't like blocking all of their rooms to one event so you
At 23:37 04/01/2005, John Cowan wrote:
John C Klensin scripsit:
I know that -- I did read 3743 first. But in that case, whatever did
you mean by ICANN has created a recommendation [...] that languages
not be mixed within a label?
The first question (see may yesterday mail) is to define what we
At 00:55 05/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
The characterization of this draft as controversial because two or three
people object to *any* change of RFC 3066, regardless of any evidence
presented of evolving needs and careful consideration thereof, is incorrect.
Dear Addison,
your draft
At 03:11 04/01/2005, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
I'm not going to respond to most of Jefsey's comments. However, wearing my
W3C hat for a moment*
Thank you for that.
To the extent that W3C specifications are important consumers of language
tags, there is interest at W3C and I'm sure the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
I know of two other wrinkles in the RFC 1766 world:
Are you aware that RFC 1766 has been obsolete for four years now?
Of course I am.
(2) SGN- requires special handling, in that SGN-FR and SGN-EN are in fact
sufficiently different languages that a primary
31 matches
Mail list logo
