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