Hi -
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey(_at_)jefsey(_dot_)com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>; "John C
Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "Randy Presuhn"
<randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Status in LTRU
At 15:18 29/06/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
But I'm confident enough about my reading of the mail in my mailbox to say
that the chair is right in saying that ISO 11179 conformance was
considered by the WG (because Jefsey proposed it), and was rejected by the
WG as irrelevant.
Note: Jefsey's suspension on the ietf-languages list runs until July 15.
After that, I have to modify my killfile so that I see mail he sends to
that list. Until then, I see no reason why I should look at mail from him
at all.
Thank you for at last showing publicly and with authority that ad-hominems
are the answer given to the "dumb" idea that, WG-ltru and ISO dealing with
the same topic (ISO Tables registries), mutual innovative considerations
(and not only political lobbying) could help both. We, and all the people
involved, know this cannot be otherwise and may mean a loss of commercial
dominance over a significant part of the Internet.
We both think competition and free softwares foster better quality and
innovation. And cultural empowerment is the key to a common and sustainable
development. So, why?
jfc
The ltru WG considered the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
No one else supported the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
Several opposed the proposal to employ ISO 11179.
The proposal to employ ISO 11179 was rejected.
Get over it.
If you have concerns with the ltru work, please take them to the
ltru(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing list. ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org really isn't
the place for
discussing the details of the language tag registry.
Randy, ltru co-chair
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf