Re: [apps-discuss] Internationalization Terminlogy

"J-F C. Morfin" <> Sun, 15 May 2011 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB195E0707; Sun, 15 May 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S2imWeY4R2Sg; Sun, 15 May 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0B3E0700; Sun, 15 May 2011 16:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:53225 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1QLkiV-0002l9-DW; Sun, 15 May 2011 16:27:19 -0700
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 01:27:18 +0200
To:, EAI WG list <>, IDNABIS WG list <>
From: "J-F C. Morfin" <>
In-Reply-To: <B9EF2F52D19B0869D6BE0197@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <B9EF2F52D19B0869D6BE0197@PST.JCK.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 May 2011 08:05:03 -0700
Cc: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Internationalization Terminlogy
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 23:27:21 -0000

Good work. I have just searched the text for some words. I note that:

- "globalization" is missing which is embarassing as Unicode uses to 
say (if I am correct) globalization = internationalization  + 
localization + language tagging.
- "langtag" term is missing, so is their IANA table (largest by far 
IANA file). RFC 5646 is named. RFC 4647 is  quoted, but not 
explained, so  "language filtering" is not alluded to.
- "linguistic diversity" is missing. Not an IETF word but the IETF 
targets its support?
- "majuscules" are named, but uncorrectly explained: in latin 
languages, at least, an upper case may be a majuscule, but a 
majuscule may not be printed as an upper case, or stays a majuscule 
even if incorrectly printed as a lower case.
- "plurilingual" is not quoted which is different from multilingual?
- "linguistic independance" is not alluded to - ex. using digital codes.
- "orthotypograpy" is missing in IETF


At 18:28 15/05/2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>If you have any significant interest in internationalization,
>and particular terminology used about it in the IETF, please
>have a look at draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3435bis-00.   Paul and I
>have several editorial and fine-tuning comments queued up, but
>are looking for more comments before we submit another draft and
>ask the Apps Area WG Chairs to generate a Last Call within that
>WG.  In other words, your last and best opportunity to submit
>effective comments is now.
>We are particularly interested in comments about what has been
>left out that is relevant and important.  Comments about
>definitions we have gotten wrong are also important.
>FWIW, we are determined to keep focus on what the title
>suggests: internationalization terminology used in the IETF (and
>in IETF protocol work in particular).  Unless there is strong
>demand in the community to change goals, we do not want to
>expand this document into a general discussion of either
>i18n/l10n issues that includes ones that the IETF has not
>addressed and is never likely to address, nor a discussion of
>character set terminology that has not been needed for IETF
>work, etc.
>Note for EAI participants: It is my hope that EAI documents will
>be consistent with these definitions and will, where
>appropriate, reference this document rather than inventing
>definitions of their own.
>Note for IDNABIS participants: Note that this document does not
>alter, or even repeat, any IDNA terminology.  IDNA-specific
>terms are simply listed and cross-referenced to RFC 5890.
>Substantive comments to please; editorial
>ones to Paul and myself.
>    john
>Idna-update mailing list