Subject: [Ltru] (no subject)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Mr. Constable,
I apologise for being late in responding. But I have to get some help to
send a mail in English.

I feel you do not realise how we perceive what you are doing. In the
Internet world there is ISO 3166 which has a clear recognition. RFC 3066
introduced ISO 639 and it provided a way to define, when people need it,
other "binomes" when the ISO tables are not enough. This is a lose, light
and versatile system. This is what is important. I can use it. Even if the
IANA registry is not well managed.

You transform the system. You make it formal. You make it heavy and
complex. I understand nothing in this text. But I am to obey it. This is
why I dislike your ideas. All the more than you make it systematic with
locales de facto imposed to Linux, and no commitment from CLDR to never do
as ISO planned to do: to register it and to force people pay for it.

You harm us, Mr. Constable. We did nothing to you.

The "." changes nothing. It is a separator. We are no fool, and we use it.
The token can be any length, the subtag remains 8alphanum - however we do
not mind. You say we break retrocompatibility: with what?

We talk necessarily of usage which were never even considered. If an old
system fails recognising our tag, what then???? Since we do not want them
to be compatible (this could be confusing). We do not want a single
ASCIInternational global space. Do you understand that? We want a space
per community: technical end to end interoperability must work everywhere,
but cultural person to person interintelligibility must be protected. Your
system forbids its most elementary protection, which is the support of its
diversity and its self-denomination/definition by the people.

Anyway, we will do it.

And we expect it to be quite used because it addresses a need. I am sorry
to have to tell you that: with all my respect, the world is not a zoo for
ASCII visitors. We are not much interested in the IETF paperwork. We are
not even interested in academic running code: we are interested in used
code and real practices. This is the best RFC. This is why you should
carefully read the mail of M. JFC Morfin. I think his position is good and
permits you to also develop your ideas. No one wants the fight you want:
but no one wants to be under pressure to speak American or to buy products
from a specific group of manufacturers. We want competition. You try to
reduce competition.

We want to empower cultures and therefore their languages. Not to put
their dominant editor in a can with a gummed ASCII langtag, on the shelves
on the e-commerce software shop. We just succeeded to get culture out of
WTO's reach: it is not to get them back through their languages. Languages
are not for sales, just language oriented tools are, but on an equal
opportunity basis for the sellers and the users. Including the right to
use open source without a commercial locale.

Mr. Constable, I am sorry. Please also get real. Not only technical,
commercial and political.
F. Charles.

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