At 21:32 22/01/2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
So, in my sample picked for "Personal attack and threats", I see no
threats, and really no attacks either.
It is hard to read, and may not be worth reading, but is not actionable IMHO.
Dear Marshall,
Thank you for spending the time to check and for speaking the truth.
Actually I am the threat, I am the "attack".
The Internet and the computer environments are US ASCII English. This
lead to the idea to support languages through a globalization
architecture internationalizing the network and localizing the
computers (RFC 2277, 3066). RFC 3066 Bis (technically and
practically) exclusively commits the Internet to this architecture
embodied by Unicode. Its current main achievement is IDNA.
This makes the Internet incompatible with multilingualisation needs,
demands, and architectural R&D like mine. Hence I am the threat.
Multilingualisation is a retro and cross-internationalisation
considering the 20.000 language entities equal. A linguistic "peer to peer".
In addition the whole world (14,500 people in Tunis, with the sole
absence of the IETF) decided for multilingualisation (I accept I am
active in that area). I also forced RFC 3066 bis to be so clean that
one can now easily circumvent its interoperability and security
problems if they were not addressed by my current appeal. I also
asked an IAB guidance to know if they want to stick to
internationalization or want to work on multilingualisation. These
two appeals are the "attack" they try to protect the IETF from.
jfc
PS. "hard to read" comes from my Franglish (should hardly be a
problem for language experts?) and from the lack of time. The waste
of time against a score of opponents reluctant to clarify their Draft
was huge. I think it was OK to waste a year to permit my work of the
10 coming years.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf