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
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
At 13:56 03/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I hope these are mutually exclusive.
Yes, if this means that the three of them should be aggregated into the
final strategy.
(i) Since we have no Next-Best Current Practices
category, publish this as an Informational Document,
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 16:43 +0100 JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 13:56 03/01/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I hope these are mutually exclusive.
Yes, if this means that the three of them should be aggregated
into the final strategy.
No, I really meant pick one,
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(iii) One way to read this document, and 3066 itself for
that matter, is that they constitute a critique of IS
639 in terms of its adequacy for Internet use.
Not exactly. It reflects that ISO 639 alone does not support all of the
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 09:58 -0800 Peter Constable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(iii) One way to read this document, and 3066 itself for
that matter, is that they constitute a critique of IS
639 in terms of its adequacy for Internet
From: Peter Constable
I'd also like to observe that various members of TC 37 and the ISO
639-
RA/JAC have observed or participated in the development of this draft.
For
my part, it is not the draft I would have developed if I had
undertaken it,
but I see no problems with it from a TC 37 or
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignoring whether that very nearly happened in RFC 3066,
because some of us would have taken exception to inserting a
script mechanism then, let's assume that 3066 can be
characterized as a language-locale standard (with some funny
exceptions
On 18:04 03/01/2005, John C Klensin said:
No, I really meant pick one, since doing any combination I of
the three that I have been able to think about would just
produce more confusion.
John,
please review your propositions. They are not fully satisfactory because
each address (correctly) only
On 20:37 03/01/2005, Peter Constable said:
I note with interest that ccTLDs make use of ISO 3166 in spite of its
potential for instability. In the case of ccTLDs, however, there is a
considerable infrastructure for dealing with this: the DN system and
strict procedures for deploying changes in
--On Monday, 03 January, 2005 12:29 -0800 Peter Constable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignoring whether that very nearly happened in RFC 3066,
because some of us would have taken exception to inserting a
script mechanism then, let's assume that
John:
How nice. In 2004, I discovered that I had no operational
experience and then that I knew nothing about standardization
processes outside the IETF. It is now only three days into 2005
and already I've learned that I haven't been focused on IT
globalization. I anxiously await the
12 matches
Mail list logo
