--On Sunday, March 2, 2025 13:53 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/2/25 1:44 PM, Rob Sayre wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 6:59 AM Orie <orie@xxxxxxx >> <mailto:orie@xxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Based on the discussions here, I have a slight preference to >> remove the profiles. >> I'd say that it would be better to convince Peter that they are >> needed, than myself. >> I agree with his comments here: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/ >> msg/last-call/Mg0w20A0g9qAAh8jYzcaPoBLpuA/ <https:// >> mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Mg0w20A0g9qAAh8jYzcaPo >> BLpuA/> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I am a bit more bitter. What the IETF did here was have the >> authors write uselessly general PRECIS profiles (wasting their >> time). That doesn't mean PRECIS is bad. It's just that the IETF >> didn't understand the problem here, or the solution presented in >> this draft. I did, even if I don't agree with everything in the >> document. I would be even looser. We don't get the opportunity >> to nitpick and correct an avalanche. >> >> It's fine to refer to PRECIS and say to consult that for >> identifiers and such. > My take is slightly more charitable: as a community, we didn't > understand until this Last Call thread that the document had > fundamentally different aims than the IDNA/PRECIS work . Although > speaking personally I was just being obtuse, it doesn't strike me > that some of the distinctions John highlighted recently are crystal > clear in the document. FWIW, I certainly didn't understand, when I originally raised the issue about interactions with PRECIS and similar work, about what I came to see (fairly recently) as different aims. However, it seems to me that, even before that, the question about this document was where it fit in relative to the plentitude of existing i18n and Unicode usage specs, in and out of the IETF. In a way, that has been the question all along and the effort to discuss PRECIS and build those profiles contributed to the understanding that we have today. >From that point of view, Rob's observation that "the IETF didn't understand the problem here" is, in a way, correct. At least some of us considered, and consider, the question of where this document fit in (and hence how to explain that) to be a, probably the, critical issue. If we had understood the issues then as we do now, then we wouldn't have had the attempt at PRECIS profiles and would not be having this discussion now. But we didn't. Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of documents like this to provide the information to make the role of the document, and those distinctions, clear. If you, Rob, understood the issue when no one else did, you were not, for whatever reasons, successful in explaining it to either the authors or the rest of us early in the process. But my conclusion would be that, while it can be a lot more painful than any of us would like, the process seems to be working or at least getting us closer to a document that will make a useful contribution rather than risking causing confusion and worse. john -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
