Re: [ga] Re: IDN.IDN wikipedia, out of my league

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey and Stephanie,
   
  Clearly this is a very important issue in general. And clearly there are many underlying issues. But just as clear is the fact that it has gone from a technical "issue" to a political one. So what political spectrum's do each of you come from. And if you say "none!" any reader will know you are both telling lies to propagate your unspoken political agenda and thereby view you with mistrust.
   
  In viewing your posts on this issue, you look like the grassroots movements to get individual representation on the ICANN board i.e. so scattered it takes a schizophrenic to decipher the difference and the motivation. 

  And taking terms like Unicode and IDN and saying sweeping generalities regarding them diminishes your credibility, you must point out the specific attributes that you support or dismiss.
   
  As for foul demeanor or words misspelled or cultural differences - get over it.
   
  e
JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  At 08:49 14/04/2006, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 06:55:07PM +0200,
> JFC Morfin wrote
> a message of 118 lines which said:
>
> > It supports an interesting possibility: to tag a limited number of
> > languages (around 250 ... over 30.000 language units the world
> > actually counts)
>
>I don't have the time to fix every lie in the world but, on this
>matter, I have some knowledge and I wish to emphasize that the
>*initial* languages registry (it will be extended in the future)
>already has 535 languages, from Afar to Zuni.
>
>See it at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry

Dear Stephane,
It is very sad, while you are so good on technical issues you know, 
you hurt your image in being so poor with people.

Let stay technical. At least I tried it, in my explanation to Simon, 
so he could use it in his Wikipedia text (I suggest him to send it to 
both of us for fair review). This is a matter you have some 
knowledge. This is a matter where I suppose I have referential competence.

I certainly understand this is also a subjective matter where you can 
have strong feelings against me for my winning "weak to strong" 
global and IETF strategy. This matter certainly concerns the world 
peace, economy and policy. There are two main positions: the 
US/Unicode globalization [you supported openly against me] and the 
multilingualisation now demanded by the rest of the world (WSIS), 
France was long the proponent. But a consensus has been found in a 
few hours on a mid-November day: the Tunis deal and the RFC 3066 Bis 
IESG approval. It certainly serves my purposes better than yours. But 
it was the US/Unicode demand. I continue to work to protect 
interoperability and to prevent balkanization. You and everyone is 
welcome to join.

I have four technical comment on your mail. I hope they help you, as 
your blog helped me in other areas.

1. Simon can use my inputs. You are an applied IDN expert. When 
reviewing my mail, your point of contention is outside of IDN issues.

2. you disagree with my generous "250" figure. What is discussed is 
the interest of the Unicode proposition, not the IANA registry I 
publicly approved. It currently concerns 
(http://unicode.org/cldr/apps/survey/) 148 locale files, representing 
128 languages. I have no doubt that at the end of the day Unicode may 
come-up with my guesstimate of 300 locale files/ 250 languages. The 
difference between Unicode and me on this issue is not technical. 
Unicode wants to constrain the number of supported languages to its 
ability to maintain locale files. I want to extend the locale file 
number to the number of lingual communities, empowering each 
community to control its own locale information.

3. I am please that you support IANA Registry extension. But how? As 
Languages or as Extensions? New languages call for an RFC 3066 ter. 
It seems explicitly nobody is eager to engage into it any time soon. 
We know it would favor a multilateral vision of the Internet, the US 
policy does not support, however it is the much pressing alternative 
to the balkanization they lead us to.

4. IRT your "535" figure, I will certainly not call it a "lie". This 
is your position. Since, for me, this is US/Unicode internal stuff, 
the best I can offer is to refer Simon to the Unicode horse's mouth.

- Mark Davis is the Unicode President. He is ex-IBM Globalization and 
now in charge at Google. He is the co-author of RFC 3066 Bis.
- Harald Alvestrand, former IETF Chair and owner of the 
ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list, is a Member of the Unicode BoD.
- Martin Duërst co-chair of the WG-LTRU which produced the RFC 3066 
Bis is a Member of Unicode.
- Michael Everson, author of the ISO 15924 scripts name list is the 
Language Tags Reviewer for who the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx list 
exists (his claim on IETF main).
- Addison Philips is W3C Internationalisation WG Chair, co-author of 
RFC 3066 Bis and responsible of this area for Yahoo!
- Doug Ewell is a Member of Unicode who authored the registry you quote.
- Scott Carpenter, an employee of Verisign a Member of Unicode, was 
the concerned AD.
- Brian Carpenter is the Chair of the IESG which approved (and 
confirmed against a clarifying appeal of mine) the RFC 3066 Bis and 
delays its application on the key reviewing issue. He is an employee 
of IBM, Member of Unicode.
- the key person in all this is Peter Constable, ex-SIL and an 
employee of Microsoft (a leading member of the Unicode consortium). 
He is the author of the ISO 639-3 Draft and an active participant to 
the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list.

All these people are IETF acknowledged experts.They carry the serious 
professional or community responsibilities, I quoted.They are 
authoritative for their own proposition. All of them share in the 
ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx debate. The best contribution I can do 
is the following ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx thread on the matter.

At 23:16 25/03/2006, Mark Davis wrote:
>At 08:27 25/03/2006, Doug Ewell wrote:
>>Mark Davis wrote:
>>>BTW, with the current registry we are now up to a total of 49,456,795
>>>possible valid language tags, not counting variants. (If we count
>>>variants, then the number is unlimited, since there can be arbitrarily
>>>many suffixed variants).
>>>
>>>Subtag Count
>>>grandfathered 34
>>>language 1,006
>>>redundant 59
>>>region 320
>>>script 153
>>>variant 4
>>>LT Count 49,456,795
>>
>>How did you arrive at these counts? I got 487 languages, 104 
>>scripts, 282 regions.
>
>You may have been filtering out some codes, like private use. Here 
>is the list I extract.



>1 language aa
>2 language ab
>3 language ae
>4 language af

(I remove a few out of respect to the member of the list)

>1000 language yap
>1001 language ypk
>1002 language zap
>1003 language zen
>1004 language znd
>1005 language zun
>1006 language zxx
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages














		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.