From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com]
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf