Subject: [Ltru] ISO 11179 and other issues

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 01:49:44 +0200

1. there is an ISO 11179 meeting right now in Paris attended by the AFRAC 
VP Docs and Chair of the AILF. This WG is supposed to have consensually 
decided that its langtags documentation did not want to consider ISO 11179. 
Randy made fun at me at the IETF to support such a proposition. This has 
surprised the US and European Govs officials which were informed.

-  there is no reason this WG looks a fool. I therefore ask a 
reconsideration of this position.
-  to help this I suggest that all those who oppose also state the time 
they spent working on ISO 11179.
-  we are ready to forward their remarks to ISO 11179 committee members and 
to try to get their comments.

2. the preparation of the meeting we have and the workshop I chair tomorrow 
gathered some people from ICANN or following the IETF and the WG-ltru list. 
We had a discussion over interesting points. The meaning of a langtag which 
is not defined in the Draft initiated a debate we will continue tomorrow. 
Also on the document QA and enrichment by the complementarity of bilingual 
parallel witing.

But a very wise remark came from an Arabic delegate: "only the English 
mother-tongue people do not associate their language with their culture". I 
never thought of that. This was verified with the score of participating 
people, of various cultures. English and non-English mother tongue. When 
you think about it this seems normal from a koine, and it might explain the 
total lack of understanding we have both at ietf-languages and WG-ltru?

What we all take as obvious despise might be a common cultural 
attidue/lack? This might explain what we consider as a careless and 
shocking attitude about the impact of the langtag rigidity, and the way you 
find commercial aspects normal in this context. One of the participants 
related a very interesting discussion he had with a very senior Microsoft 
person, over IDN and multilingualism, and how they further related over the 
Microsoft real commercial interest to be cultural sponsor rather than a 
market leader.

I asked that we would have more non-English mother tongue people at 
ietf-languages, what was contested. I should have said people considering 
their language as the very founding part of their culture and identity, and 
not only as a communication vehicle.

Comments welcome on this which is really new to me. But which seems very true?

Also, a question over that, a part from the political and commercial 
aspects and the fact to have been involved in this Draft for so long, do 
you really think it will fly the way it is not explained?
jfc

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

---

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:08:01 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of r&d
> afrac

> to try to get their comments.

I think it would be *FAR* more appropriate for members of ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC32, if they are concerned, to contact the chairs of this WG or to
ask the membership of this list as a whole what reasons our decision not
to reference ISO 11179 were based upon, rather than to have Mr. Morfin
representing this WG to them.

> ietf-languages, what was contested.

No suggestion that the IETF-languages list be open to mother-tongue
speakers of languages other than English has ever been contested.

Peter Constable