ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

2005-08-24 20:48:04
At 17:34 24/08/2005, David Hopwood wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
I would like to understand why http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-12.txt claims to be a BCP: it introduces a standard track proposition, conflicting with current practices and development projects under way?

I've read this draft and see nothing wrong with it. Having a fixed,
unambiguous way to parse the elements of a language tag is certainly
a good idea. What specific current practices do you think it conflicts
with?

Dear David,
Before parsing the language tags many issues are to be considered which have important consequences often out of the IETF scope (L8/9).

I could tell you I work on brain to brain interintelligibilty related tools and projects for 25 years: the inadequation, the scarcity, the centalised control of the proposed solution directly oppose the work of my own R&D organisation. But you could object "too bad for you" (we are used to that).

So, I will tell you something different. Today, the common practice of nearly one billion of Internet users is to be able to turn off cookies to protect their anonymous free usage of the web. Once the Draft enters into action they will be imposed a conflicting privacy violation: "tell me what you read, I will tell you who you are": any OPES can monitor the exchange, extact these unambigous ASCII tags, and know (or block) what you read. You can call these tags in google and learn a lot about people. There is no proposed way to turn that personal tagging off, nor to encode it.

I support it as a transition standard track RFC needed by some, as long as it does not exclude more specific/advanced language identification formats, processes or future IANA or ISO 11179 conformant registries.

The grammar defined in the draft is already flexible enough.

(I suppose you mean more than just grammar. Talking of the ABNF is probably clearer?).

I am certainly eager to learn how I can support modal information (type of voice, accent, signs, icons, feelings, fount, etc.), medium information, language references (for example is it plain, basic, popular English? used dictionary, used software publisher), nor the context (style, relation, etc.), nor the nature of the text (mono, multilingual, human or machine oriented - for example what is the tag to use for a multilingual file [printed in a language of choice]), the date of the langtag version being used, etc.

The Draft relates language tags to a centraly controled and managed registry. This is a deprecating concept as the Internet distributed nature becomes more and more a reality. This is fully documented by the RFC on URI tags. That RFC proposes some examples, using standard Internet schemes. It would be great if you could show me how the Draft can support them.

The Draft has introduced the "script" subtag in addition to RFC 3066 (what is an obvious change). However in order to stay "compatible" with RFC 3066, author says it cannot introduce a specific support of URI tags. This is why I would be more than gratefull if you could show me how the ABNF is "already flexible enough" to support them.

Deep thanks.
jfc








--
David Hopwood 
<david(_dot_)nospam(_dot_)hopwood(_at_)blueyonder(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>