Hi - > From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:55 AM > Subject: Status in LTRU > > At 15:18 29/06/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > >But I'm confident enough about my reading of the mail in my mailbox to say > >that the chair is right in saying that ISO 11179 conformance was > >considered by the WG (because Jefsey proposed it), and was rejected by the > >WG as irrelevant. > >Note: Jefsey's suspension on the ietf-languages list runs until July 15. > >After that, I have to modify my killfile so that I see mail he sends to > >that list. Until then, I see no reason why I should look at mail from him > >at all. > > Thank you for at last showing publicly and with authority that ad-hominems > are the answer given to the "dumb" idea that, WG-ltru and ISO dealing with > the same topic (ISO Tables registries), mutual innovative considerations > (and not only political lobbying) could help both. We, and all the people > involved, know this cannot be otherwise and may mean a loss of commercial > dominance over a significant part of the Internet. > > We both think competition and free softwares foster better quality and > innovation. And cultural empowerment is the key to a common and sustainable > development. So, why? > jfc The ltru WG considered the proposal to employ ISO 11179. No one else supported the proposal to employ ISO 11179. Several opposed the proposal to employ ISO 11179. The proposal to employ ISO 11179 was rejected. Get over it. If you have concerns with the ltru work, please take them to the ltru@xxxxxxxx mailing list. ietf@xxxxxxxx really isn't the place for discussing the details of the language tag registry. Randy, ltru co-chair _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf