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

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

r&d afrac wrote:

> However, your answer does not address the point.

Yes, the tag: URI scheme is beside the point for this WG.  I
discussed it on the uri@w3 list, not knowing that it's already
approved, but some of its problems with percent-encoded email
addresses and STD 66 oddities also affect problems with the
mailto: and news: URI schemes.  That's fascinating, but really
unrelated to the language tags of 1766 / 3066 / 3066bis.

Maybe relevant for your alternative schemes, if you want to
allow characters that are not allowed in STD 66 URIs.

> The reason why RFC 3066 bis is supposed to be urgently
> needed is a better support of XML. This has been widely
> documented by Addison.

> I contested that point because I think that this is
> detrimental to the users

I also "contested" it, IMHO we need the explicit scripts,
because with Unicode that's not more an implicit attribute
of the charset.

It's not detrimental for users.  It's better than the old 3066
rules.  It's the best possible solution compatible with 3066.
It's a necessity, we won't win a price for the most beutiful
standard with our "Suppress-Script" kludge.

> I also contested it because this is inadequate to the
> network architecture needs and does not properly scale.

Support Bruce's Content-Script I-D if you like it better.  I've
no problem to do both at the same time, support 3066bis _and_
Bruce's idea.

> I also contested it because the limited number of subtags
> gives a commercial unfair dramatic advantage to the market
> dominant publishers with a dramatic ecocultural impact.

I don't see any "commercial advantage".  But the _technical_
problems with the "most perverse tag" were real.  That was a
point in the old last call.  Nothing is wrong if standards are
implemented, and if some implementations are "commercial".

I certainly hope that my next box will run under a "free" OS,
with a browser supporting UniCode and 3066bis and CSS.  And if
that's exactly what *** wants me to think it doesn't mean that
it's necessarily wrong.  One company where I'd have serious
reservations has less than three letters.

> I was convinced this was a true genuine request of the W3C.

We're here because the IETF last call of the old draft found
problems above editorial nits, not "on request of the W3C",
ICANN, VeriSign, Unicode, Redmond, IBM, Thorvald, or who else.

Somebody, IIRC it was John Klensin among others, proposed to
do it in a proper IETF WG.  Where is the problem with this ?

> in the archives of this WG-ltru the mention "Chair, W3C
> Internationalization Core Working Group" appears 168 times

Yeah, maybe, so what ?  Probably as often as "Quest Software".
Or "AFRAC".  Or "xyzzy".

> his proposition is private and has nothing to do with the
> W3C, what makes the Draft lose my support.

We're all supposed to contribute / work as individuals.  It is
an IETF standard, we play by IETF rules.  We've even discussed
to appoint a W3C liaison, but then we agreed to do it solely by
IETF rules without such formalities.

Of course the result will be something W3C and Unicode and ICU
can live with, and it will be also something IMAP, MIME, etc.
can live with.  That was the purpose of this LTRU WG.

> he does not consider a W3C disclaimer as did S. Hawke,

The BCP 78 / BCP 79 boilerplates are bad enough, inventing new
"disclaimers" would make it worse from my POV.

Network Working Group                          A. Phillips, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                  Quest Software
Expires: February 5, 2006                         M. Davis, Ed.
                                                           IBM

Network Working Group                              T. Kindberg
Internet-Draft                     Hewlett-Packard Corporation
Expires: August 4, 2005                               S. Hawke
                                     World Wide Web Consortium

Major difference.  Maybe Sandro is an employee of the W3C, and
felt that it's necessary to point out that the tag: URI idea
was his private business.  If you're curious ask him.

Harmless political details at the border between W3C and IETF,
I don't care at the moment.  It also has its funny sides, see
Martin's discussions with Leslie about the proper URI list.

Of course I miss tons of background history, it could be very
important, and I only can't judge it.  Like Haralds fights with
Bob, all these reorganization BCPs.  But in that case I could
at least guess that it was about money paid by the visitors
of IETF meetings and spent for the Secretary.  Or whatever, I'm
no "paying member", it's none of my business.

> I must say that I quite lost faith in the possibility to save
> this Draft.

It's not threatened, only Bruce has the power to kill a draft,
because I'd let him if he has good reasons.  The last time he
did it his review was longer than the draft... <shudder />  But
I'm 100% certain that this won't happen with the LTRU drafts.

Okay, the IESG has its own tricks to kill drafts, they approve
them as "experimental", one big experiment with 700.000 domains
and about 10 implementations, one small experiment with a few
hundreds of domains and one implementation.  Because that's too
obvious the big experiment is decreed to be a part of the small
experiment.  An experiment with non-consenting participants -
maybe the G in IESG stands for "Godwin".  It definitely means
that I'm now excessively far off topic, bye, Frank



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