IETF-related spam from JFC Morfin

I have again received spam from JFC Morfin similar to the messages I
complained about last week:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg43675.html
See the attached message whose headers claim that it has been sent to a
couple of IETF lists, but which was actually BCCed as unsolicited bulk
email to various people who do not want to receive email from jefsey.
This kind of abuse should justify removing this person's list posting
rights.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>  http://dotat.at/
FORTIES CROMARTY FORTH: SOUTHERLY 6 TO GALE 8, DECREASING 5 OR 6 LATER. RAIN
OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
> --- Begin Message ---
> I copy this important exchange with my premiminary note to most of 
> the people I know who are interested in the language diversity issue. 
> This is a long post. However the exchange is between the two 
> certainly most competent and key persons in the area and deals with 
> the most important point for language digital support.
> All the best.
> jfc
>
>
> Preliminary note.
>
> 1. review of the positions
>
> - in many ways we can share the positions expressed by Peter 
> Constable (Microsoft, TC37, JAC, author of ISO 639-3).
> - at the same time we understand what Mark Davis (Google, President 
> of Unicode, Director of the CLDR project, co-author of RFC 4646)  implies.
> - it is noteworthy that none of them refers to ISO 15897. May be the 
> crux of the problem?
> 2. better later than never
>
> Unfortunately 15 months ago Mark Davis and Peter Constable denied me 
> these answers and the resulting debate. As all the other points they 
> eventually start debating on IANA management and access, language 
> registry reviewing process management,  Suppress-script, CLDR, 
> multi-media, etc. and will have to pursue on interoperability, 
> IRI-tags, IDNs, protocols, relational spaces, retro-meta-spam, 
> primary languages, language definition, new modes support, ethics 
> points, cultural and language diversity, revision of RFC 4646 
> conepts, etc. should have been addressed a long ago.
> 3. status of the http://bcp47.com endeavour
>
> I thank you for your comments. I will try to use them for a global 
> review of this key issue on http://bcp47.com. I remind you that we do 
> not want to start implementing this site before we can start with a 
> comprehensive description of the BCP 47 doctine, confirmed by the 
> IESG and possibly the IAB. To that end, a certain number of appeals 
> have been engaged, raisings the necessary questions to obtain the 
> necessary formal positions.
> - IESG has addressed the RFC 4646 appeal in a way which did not 
> require an appeal to IAB.
> - IESG has not addressed the interoperability, RFC 4646 respect, 
> ethic, IANA control, etc. issues through the appeals against the DoS 
> imposed on me. This is now escalated to the IAB.
> - IESG had promised to expedite the responses on RFC 4647 before 
> publishing it. The RFC is now published for nearly three weeks.
> - the confusion over the respect of the RFC 4646 Review Process will 
> result in an appeal against its discrepancies. I appealed to Michael 
> Everson and wait for his answer.
> - the confusion over the WG-LTRU debate due to its charter renewal 
> (they start discussing the points they denied in their charter) has 
> completed its preliminary RC 2026 procedure. Appeal to the IESG is 
> under preparation.
> 4. links
>
> Information on CLDR and on the Unicode consortium can be found under 
> http://unicode.org. This consortium works on, publishes, and maintain 
> many more files and tables than its contribution to ISO 10646.
>
>
> Initial mail of Peter Constable
>
> > On 9/27/06, Peter Constable 
> > <<mailto:petercon(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>petercon(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > [This is running a risk of straying off topic for this list, but 
> > I'll post this here since it still pertains to Don's questions 
> > regarding whether particular reg entries should have certain info 
> > added to them.]
> > > From: 
> > <mailto:ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>ietf-languages-bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no 
> > [mailto:<mailto:ietf-languages->ietf-languages-
> > > <mailto:bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>bounces(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no ] On Behalf 
> > Of Kent Karlsson
> > > > that region is a key attribute of a locale,
> > >
> > > ...no.
> >
> > Please explain. I guess this might depend on one's view of what the 
> > minimal set of information categories that are required for a locale 
> > consists of.
> > > > locale ID must always include a region component as well as a
> > > > language component.
> > >
> > > CLDR locales don't. Just about all locale data can, and often should,
> > > be in the "language only" named locales. Very rarely is there a difference
> > > from those locales that belong in the "language_territory" sublocales.
> >
> > Not being a participant in the CLDR project, I'm not in a good 
> > position to evaluate the intent of the data I see there. I do note 
> > that, e.g. there is a file "en.xml". But clearly there is no such 
> > thing as a region-neutral English locale: every English speaker 
> > lives in a region where one of "M/d/yy" or "d/M/yy" is the preferred 
> > short date format (and probably the majority live in regions that 
> > prefer the latter), but this data file is not neutral wrt short date 
> > format: in spite of the name, the data it contains really is 
> > applicable to the US. Now, perhaps the intent here is that this is 
> > data that can be used as a default if region-specific data is not 
> > available, but it seems to me that's just a round about way of 
> > saying that en-US is used as the default locale for English.
> > > Yes, but choosing (a single) currency or a choosing a measurement
> > > system does not belong in a locale. Doing that is a mistake, similar to
> > > that of selecting character encoding via locale (as, unfortunately done
> > > in Unix/POSIX locales).
> These are only ever defaults. It's not appropriate to assume that 
> every English speaker in the US wants a short date format of 
> "M/d/yy", but it is an appropriate default in that scenario. In the 
> same way, it's not appropriate to assume that a user in the US will 
> always use imperial units of measure, but it is reasonable to treat 
> imperial units as a default. Same for currency.
>
> Review of the CLDR project by Mark Davis
>
> > From: mark(_dot_)edward(_dot_)davis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com 
> > [mailto:mark(_dot_)edward(_dot_)davis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
> >
> > Now, the difference between "language" identifiers and "locale" 
> > identifiers is notoriously slippery, so I'll provide some background 
> > on how CLDR is actually structured, so you don't have to guess.
> > The CLDR data is separated into language-specific data, and 
> > non-language specific data. The language-specific data does *not* 
> > include items like the currencies for a country, or the weekend 
> > days, etc.; that is all in the non-language specific data. Here are 
> > some examples:
> > <http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/collation/>http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/collation/
> > http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/main/
> >
> > The non-language-specific data includes which currencies were valid 
> > in a particular country during which years, or which languages are 
> > customarily written in which scripts. Some examples are:
> > <http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/supplemental/>http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/supplemental/
> > http://unicode.org/cldr/data/common/transforms/
> >
> > The so-called locale inheritance is used for the language-specific 
> > data, not the non-language-specific data, so it would be more 
> > accurate to call it language inheritance. The vast majority of the 
> > language-specific data does not differ by country. While, for 
> > example, the content of en.xml is chosen to be appropriate for the 
> > the most populous country speaking en (the US), that doesn't mean 
> > that content is *always* inappropriate for many of the other regions 
> > that could use English (eg AG AI AS AU AW BB BM BS BW BZ CA CC CK CM 
> > CX DM ER FJ FK FM GB GD GH GI GM GY HK IE IN IO JM KE KI KN KY LC LR 
> > LS MH MP MS MT MW NA NF NG NR NU NZ PG PH PK PN PW RW SB SG SH SL SZ 
> > TC TK TO TT TZ UG UM US VC VG VI ZA ZM ZW).
> > In cases where content does differ according to the region, such as 
> > the UK, then one includes overrides of what is in en.XML. (Where the 
> > language-specific data for two locale/language tags are the same and 
> > different than the base, one can be aliased (either in full or in 
> > part) to the other. Thus if en_ZW, for example, followed UK spelling 
> > conventions, then it could be aliased to en_UK. While the files use 
> > "_", CLDR recognizes "-" and "_" as equivalent in identifiers.)
> > You say:
> > >But clearly there is no such thing as a region-neutral English locale
> >
> > This sentence is a bit slippery; it depends highly on what one means 
> > by locale. Let me recast it. For a given type of content (eg country 
> > names) and a given language subtag, there may be differences among 
> > regions (as defined by BCP47) or it may be that all regions share 
> > the same values. (For that matter, there may be differences *within* 
> > regions, as well -- either according to sub-region that BCP 47 isn't 
> > fine-grained enough for (eg for some speech applications the 
> > differences Bostonian English may be important).
> > Where there are differences in regions, the region is important. 
> > Where there are not differences between regions, the region is not 
> > important. Thus in many cases, the CLDR data does not differ by 
> > country at all, so requiring a country subtag is pointless. In that 
> > sense, I'd say your sentence
> > > that region is a key attribute of a locale,
> >
> > is false. Region may or may not be significant, depending on the 
> > content, and depending on the language.
> > If you meant to say that the *ability* to have a region as a 
> > component of locale/language is key, then I'd agree with you -- 
> > otherwise one couldn't distinguish between en-US and en-UK content.
> > I do, however, agree with you on the major point: this is all about 
> > *defaults*; identifiers have an inherent limitation -- they 
> > represent some class of users, within which there will always be variations.
> > Mark
> At 07:13 28/09/2006, Peter Constable wrote:
> (Note: typography results from Peter Constable use of HTML in his post).
>
> > As I said earlier, this very much depends on oneâ??s notion of what 
> > a locale is. You say,
> > â??â?¦ it depends highly on what one means by locale. Let me recast 
> > it. For a given type of content (eg country names) and a given 
> > language subtag, there may be differences among regions? or it may 
> > be that all regions shhare the same values.â??
> > You are picking out one particular data category, country names. 
> > That is not a locale, by any usage Iâ??ve ever seen before now! I 
> > donâ??t in the slightest question that, for a single data category 
> > for which the values are linguistic expressions, region is not 
> > necessarily relevant. But again, that is not a locale.
> > You are casting â??localeâ?? as a data collection that is completely 
> > variable wrt the data categories it contains, with no minimal set of 
> > required data categories (thereâ??s only the proviso that there be 
> > at least one kind of content). I can easily imagine thatâ??s a 
> > useful approach to managing data in a repository like CLDR, where 
> > the only functional requirement is data management. But a data 
> > collection in that context is just that, a collection of data, not a 
> > locale. A locale is a locale by virtue of its role within a software 
> > implementation.
> > So, while I have no problem saying that a set of country names in 
> > English is locale data, I would not say that makes it a locale. But, 
> > of course, the way I am casting it leaves open the question of just 
> > what the â??role within a software implementationâ?? needs to look like.
> > And, of course, Iâ??m assuming a model thatâ??s been around for a 
> > while in which a software implementation has various functions to 
> > produce various kinds of culture-dependent results -- provide a 
> > country name, format a numeric value as a currency string, sort a 
> > set of data, etc. ? where all of those functions havee in common a 
> > particular parameter that uses one set of system-recognized symbols 
> > to determine the culture to be assumed in producing any of those 
> > results. In that model, I contend that region is always a key factor 
> > in the cultural distinctions because there is always one or more 
> > functions that produce results that are regionally determined or 
> > even specific to a particular region: date format, default currency 
> > symbol, etc.
> > And, of course, itâ??s possible to imagine an implementation that 
> > doesnâ??t use that culture-atom model â?" i.e. an implementation in 
> > which different sets of symbols are used for parameterizing 
> > different clussters of functions. The whole set of functions still 
> > have in common that they produce some kind of culture-dependent 
> > result, but different ones use different parameters to determine 
> > different cultural attributes as are relevant for the given 
> > function. So, for instance, a function that formats a numeric date 
> > value as a day name in a given language might use as a parameter 
> > just a language ID with no region element, while another function 
> > that formats a numeric value as a currency string might use as a 
> > parameter just a region ID with no language element. Perhaps 
> > software implementations in the future will all work this way such 
> > that there are no longer any functions that rely on parameters that 
> > correspond to â??locale IDsâ?? / LCIDs as those are understood in 
> > that model described in the preceding paragraph. In that case, you 
> > might well have a situation in which IDs with region elements are 
> > needed only exceptionally ? as you are suggestion. But in that 
> > casee, Iâ??d say that those identifiers that are used are IDs for 
> > some other notions, not locale IDs.
> > Again, this is probably straying off topic for this list, so I 
> > should let this one go.
> > Â
> > Peter
>
> --- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf