Hi -

Unless someone provides a proposal with specific text, issue
[psg.com #969] will remain closed.

Randy, ltru co-chair

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> Cc: <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:55 AM
> Subject: last response (was: character set considerations materialis contradictory)
>

> At 07:08 26/05/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> > > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@microsoft.com>
> > > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:35 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #969]character set considerations
> > materialiscontradictory
> >...
> > > Since a reasonable application will not expose language tags to end
> > > users, and especially will not require them to type them in, and since
> > > IT professionals building applications who may need to type these in
> > > will almost certain have other reasons why they need to be able to type
> > > a-z, I think this is not a concern that needs to be addressed in this
> > > draft (no more than it being a concern e.g. for HTTP and countless other
> > > specifications).
> > >
> > > Therefore, I suggest that this item be closed.
> >...
> >
> >Since there haven't been any proposals for specific changes to section
> >7 of http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-02.txt,
> >I've closed this item with a status of "rejected".
>
> Dear Mr. Presuhn,
> I think I have been clear enough in repeating that:
>
> - characterisation of application's "reasonability" as not exposing
> non-ASCII characters,
> - the concept of outcast "end users" who would have only a limited access
> to IETF deliverables,
> - imprecise considerations such "will _almost_certain_" ignoring one shot
> all the non-ASCII development environments,
>
> are hardly acceptable in order to support a proposition seriously wanting
> to be a scalable IETF standard for the whole internet
>
> I note that for three hundred years communications have known to build
> language/script independent protocols accessible to everyone and to the
> reading of every lawmaker, Judge and Jury in every courts of the world. I
> have no doubt the WG you chair can come with a similar approach, as a still
> pending serious reading of its Charter would have shown it has been
> entrusted to by the IESG.
>
> Tired to blow in the violin of this mailing list, I went yesterday on
> records about the collective attitude of the affinity group leading this WG
> to a consensus by exhaustion, making it an RFC 3774 show case. So, I will
> not come back on the points I made. My censors will be able to go to these
> two mails. All the more than everyone will suspect your repetition of Peter
> Constable's quote and your wording were a bait on purpose, as a way to
> tackle my yesterday mail. Actually I take advantage of it to copy in Bcc
> all those who did not believe it possible.
>
> I expect that you will now ban me again for disrespect of the Chair,
> defending technical principles supporting the concepts of national
> sovereignty, facilitating international cooperation, cultural empowerment
> and absolute respect of users' person, rights and equal opportunity which
> are explicit or implicit core values of every SDO and of every postal and
> communication architecture for centuries.
>
> If you feel these values and objectives, which are my reason in life for
> decades, are no part of the IETF vision I can only feel sorry for you. I
> then suggest you introduce a Draft to also ban them as a disgrace for the
> centralised Internet you seem to want to build. I also feel sorry for the
> good work of this WG IRT the XML W3C says to need. It is hurt by their
> authors' pretension to make it a new BCP 47 and your politicking. We are
> here to discuss global scalable cute technical solutions, for their
> intelligence and/or for their support of the real world. Not to share into
> now plain to many cross-SDOs commercial maneuvers.
>
> I proposed many times we try to find a consensual proposition addressing
> that commercial interest, avoiding a market dominance and matching the
> Multilingual Internet requirements. This is because I doubt market
> organised joint monopolies can succeed nowadays, but I realise the world is
> not ready to practically replace them. In refusing/fighting this
> proposition and in asking too much, you will only push many to awake and to
> strive to develop responses preventing a lingual tools market control by
> any one, even by leading stakeholders.
>
> For that last reason, and for that reason only, we can all thank you.
> jfc
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru