Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6

Hoi,
I found the reply that Peter made in his reply on the thread "Re: [Ltru] ISO
639-6 (was: Geocoordinates)" problematic. In it he said: "But I can tell you
up front that I will most likely push back on a revision to make use of the
reserved alpha-4 subtags not only because it's inconvenient for my
derivative application but also because I remain very skeptical that there
will be benefits (let alone ROI, considering the costs).". I find this
problematic because it puts commercial interests clearly ahead of a
structured approach that comes with the ISO-639-6.

Now that Peter states that he is expressing his own opinions and not the
opinion of Microsoft, I find the statement quoted above unacceptable. It is
unacceptable because he is spouting FUD on a standard that intends to
reconcile the different standards in one body, a standard that intends to
finally give a place to the different orthographies. When Peter speaks for
Microsoft about ROI and costs, I find it problematic because I wonder how he
reconciles this with being a member of the community, when Peter "only"
expresses his own opinion it becomes unacceptable to me because he clearly
presents himself as a Microsoft employee. ROI and costs are business
related  considerations and making these "personal opinion" is disingenuous
probably dishonest and in my opinion unacceptable.

There are clear benefits to a standard that reconciles the current mess of
ISO-639 standards that are problematic to reconcile and have made the
current RFC process a waiting game. At this time there is no software that
provides the "most basic" language support. The most basic language support
is recognising that people want to write in their own language and enabling
them to do so. Enabling this is nothing more then setting the appropriate
meta data and allowing people to express themselves. The best argument
against providing a "most basic" language support has been the standards do
not support this and with "personal opinions" expressed in this way it is
less likely when we will see the day that people can express themselves in
their language.
Thanks,
        Gerard

2009/3/17 Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>

> Due to off-line mail I received in relation to some of my comments in this
> thread, I feel I need to make one additional comment:
>
> The opinions I have expressed are my own and not those of my employer or
> any other party with whom I may be affiliated.
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:39 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6
>
> Hi -
>
> As co-chair...
>
> I don't see much progress in this discussion.  I suggest that those
> wishing to see work in ltru on the use of ISO 639-6 as a source of
> subtags should submit a specific charter update proposal to this
> mailing list for discussion.  Please refrain from further comment
> on this topic until someone provides a specific (i.e. containing dates
> and delivarables) charter update proposal.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>