RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs

["Addison Phillips" <[e-mail]>]

How many times do I have to write, troll, that my work here is unaffiliated with my work at W3C (or anywhere else)?

I do not "sign" my work here as a "member" of the W3C. The only person on this list that purports to represent more than one person is YOU. You claim to represent organizations as well as the opinions of others. I claim to represent only myself.

Frostily,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of r&d afrac
> Sent: 2005?8?6? 14:52
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
> 
> May be should I ask now a question I always wanted to ask. Addison co-
> signs
> his Draft on language tags as a member of the W3C. He explained well the
> problems he faces with XML (Mark did not explain the ones he has with CLDR
> locales, and I have been prevented to explain those I have with the
> DNS-locales).
> 
> So, we have an Internet standard process oriented BCP Draft, by the W3C
> generously imposed to all the Internet protocols, to document the language
> sub-class of tag object class.
> 
> There is a document approved as an RFC on the Editor's desk which
> describes
> "the tag URIs also known as 'tags'", i.e. that tag class. This document is
> authored by gentlemen from HP and W3C. This Draft by gentlemen from IBM
> and
> W3C. This RFC soon to be published (draft-kindberg-tag-uri-07.txt) is the
> Internet document of reference we used as a source of inspiration when
> documenting the "x-tags", trying to keep two W3C Drafts consistent.
> Everyone observed it is not that it is not easy.
> 
> The Kindberg/Hawke RFC, approved by the IESG, has still be less considered
> by this WG than the IESG Charter. It is however as well worded as the
> Draft
> on some points. So after having tried with the "x-" proposition, we
> followed Lee Guillam and disengaged through the "0-" escaped sequence. But
> technically it is unlikely that Draft be accepted if the "x-" does not
> support Kindberg RFC inheritance.
> 
> The difference between the two documents are:
> - the Kindberg/Hawke RFC has been approved, is open and tag class generic,
> respects ISO 1179, and includes a disclaimer that it may  not reflect the
> views and opinion of the W3C
> - the Draft has already failed two Last Calls, is constrained and limited
> to tag sub-class, is not interested in aligning on ISO 11179 and does not
> include an IESG or W3C disclaimer.
> 
> The problem is that the ABNFs of the two documents (as it was opposed to
> me) are not compatible. The "x-" format I proposed was Kindberg/Hawke
> conformant, but was denied by the W3C author of the Draft.
> 
> There is therefore a need for the Draft either to include a disclaimer
> that
> the "W3C language tag" does not represent the views and opinion of the W3C
> anymore than the Kindberg/Hawke, or that to the contrary the ambiguity of
> the Kindberg/Hawker RFC is now clarify and the Draft do represent the
> views
> and opinions of the W3C and Unicode, at least for the part of the tag
> class
> documenting languages.
> 
> Otherwise it is likely that the Draft will be opposed the IESG approved
> definition of a "tag". The solution seems obvious. It is simply to modify
> the "x-" ABNF as:
> 
> "encapsulates a RFC X- ABNF conformant tag"
> 
> and to remove the adverse language in 2.2.
> 
> jfc
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru