At 05:00 29/08/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >XML, HTML, etc. are not IETF protocols and should not be the main
> >consideration in IETF work on IETF documents,
>
> They are specifically quoted by the Charter. Also is CLDR...
These are cited in the charter only as examples in a statement to the
effect that "the RFC 3066 standard for language tags has been widely
adopted in various protocols and text formats..."
Yes then?
BTW is CLDR an IETF protocol? I tried to get the insurrence that
there would never be IPR attached to it. Never got it. Since it is a
way to introduce and stabilise a proprietary file in every Linux
system, I am interested in the license and in the warranty it will
never permit protected inclusions. All the more than I would prefer a
community proposition. May be a good solution would be a structural alliance?
My concern is also the magnitude of the project and the allocated
interest and the voluntaries. Also the legal responsibility in case
of error (I am only rising questions from Gov officials).
Nevertheless a lot of time has been spent on XML. And the only
compatibility which has been worked on is with XML librairies. I do
not oppose that (one of the authors puiblishes one), but I would
appreciate other protcols and processes such as OPES, DNS, computer
languages (I was opposed when discussing java), project (I docimented
CRC enough...) PPP, IANA, etc.have been considered.
> It is to note that ISO 639-4 work is about discussing guidelines in
> that area. This work is under way and was not considered.
Mr. Morfin appears to me to have no more than a very vague sense of the
scope of ISO 639-4.
This is somewhat fun as I am a contributor.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf