JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
you say you imagine the following exchange is "off-topic for IETF". Please reread the RFC 3066 bis, and your own accompanying proposed registry accepted by the IESG after the Tunis deal. And reread RFC 3935. _You_ trapped the IETF in pretending it is competent in matter of language identification, language tagging, script issues, national lingual policies, etc. to the point to take the world leadership (and the RFC 3935 accompanying responsibilities) with the mission to influence people to design, use and manage the Internet in that area.
It has already been explained countless times, for those who care to read and understand, that neither RFC 3066bis nor its predecessors RFC 3066 and 1766 establishes the IETF as a linguistic authority. It establishes a mechanism by which the language in which content is expressed can be identified.
Masataka Ohta does not discuss an ISO matter. He discusses an IETF langtag issue.
Ohta and I are never going to agree on this Han unification issue, but at least I suspect he understands that it is not "an IETF langtag issue." It is nothing of the sort. It is a dispute over the design of ISO 10646.
You know, not everything that anyone ever says can be twisted into an argument against RFC 3066bis.
So, I will appeal to the IAB to get a final guidance.
What a dismal life you must lead, if your only joy is in tearing down the work of others.
Anyone who wants to know what RFC 3066bis is really about is invited to read it themselves: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt
I will not waste further keystrokes on this. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf