Re: from the horse's mouth

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 11:26 02/11/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On onsdag, november 02, 2005 06:25:03 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It would seem to me that the market as always will be the ultimate
arbiter.  If people can't use the work or don't find it palatable they
won't.  Arguably the decruft experiment demonstrated this in some cases.

Remember that the market has also chosen Microsoft Outlook..... I *still* refuse to accept that model as a CHI model that works for me.

This is exactly the reason why I *will* refuse to accept your internationalisation model.

Sometimes written opinions from CHI experts might also help to prevent
networking Edsels, if you would.

Having people invite comments from CHI experts - and having IETF people respect those comments when they arrive! - would be a Good Thing.

Amen.

CHI's main question is who is the master, who is the slave? The human or the computer? For more than 30 years I am opposed in this area because I say: the human is the master. However, making the computer the master is simpler and permits to control the human and his market.

The practical response is (IMHO) in NHI (network/human interaction) where humans interactions are computer assisted. For good of for bad, common human behaviour/usage (brainware) does not care about what the computers do, but about what they think the computers do or should do on their opinion. IETF is well used to this: the Standard Track deals with computers and the BCP with brainware.

This is why trying to constrain brainware within the limits of computer's localization projects is a layer violation which can only work when the brainware has no impact. What we can call a "default" situation. Computer localization must be user defined, this is what I call personalisation. But it cannot be implemented (except in "dafault" cases) on an internationalized medium which is too limited by its underlaying constraints. It calls for a true universalisation of the medium. In being user defined it is free to chose the referent of his spaces of exchanges (vernacular), but also to adapt to the context of each relation.

Do not look anywhere else for the IDNA failure. It is only a very simple brainware bug. You can easily correct.
jfc

PS. Correct that bug and you will get rid of the brainware man I am far faster than with a PR-action. I am only interested in a proper IETF brainware support.




_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]