Hi! Harald,
We fully agree on this. But I see you are fighting here the same
difficulty I fight against you for languages. They propose words in
their language context as you propose languages tags in your
internationalised context. They do the same layer violation as you
do. The only solution to this is to conceptualise and to universalise
the concept. ISO 11179. You define a concept, give it a unique ID
(building a referent) and as many names as you need which name the
concept, not its version in a given context. However I agree
JTC1/SG32/W2 has not yet addressed the multilingual and the networked
aspects. But IETF have clumsily approached it with IDNA and very well
with the DNS.
The problem is that the whole process has to be "multiterative". When
you consider your "internationalization", the concept named in
English is to be adapted into the locale culture which tries to
understand your concept the same way as you do (this is monologue).
This is workable but gives leadership (and economical, cultural,
political, technical advantages to the American end). Better you have
a true dialog where the American concepts includes the other end's
concepts. Unicode very partly does that for texts items.
"multinationalisation" calls for the concept to be equally understood
(what does "understand" mean?) the same way between every cultures
(every ends are equal). Either because the concept is truly
universal. Or because you built all the cross-national in-between
extended services to permit a polylogual relation. This means that
when an American end says "kitchen", the French end will receive
"American style Kitchen" (our kithens are not _built_ the same way
and do not include the same set of things).
I take a very common example. Many languages have the same term for
blue and green and only consider them as different shades. Recent
studies shown that people of different languages describe the
different variations of blue/green the same way with the right eye
(left brain) but differently with the left eye (right brain),
depending on the language.
A friend of mine works on dictionary about kids: the way kids
understand the same thing around the world. Example: "bring me some
water" implies many different things to do if the kid lives in a
flat, in a farm, in a desert, in the USA, in Bangladesh, etc. and the
water may be very different.
Welcome in multinationalisation and DRS preparatory work. BTW IAB
will say if this is an IETF matter or not.
jfc
At 14:15 19/01/2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
[taking out the iesg from CC list, but leaving WG and ietf list in]
--On onsdag, januar 18, 2006 22:49:27 -0500 Henning Schulzrinne
<hgs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Some additional comments on closer reading and a general comment:
2) Inadequate context for use:
The document does not make reference to RPID, except in
"acknowledgement". Thus, it has to be interpreted as stand-alone,
and must contain its own guidance. RPID states:
These things guide the usage of place-types in RPID, but cannot be
found from the registry document.
Since usage will strongly depend on the context and since this registry
is not limited to RPID, I think this would belong into RPID (or other
documents), not the registry.
Sigh.... I guess we disagree on principles here pretty strongly.
I think that in order for a vocabulary like this to be useful, it
has to fit its purpose. A vocabulary that is made to fit multiple
purposes will in the end fit neither - for one recent example, see
the discussion between the "mail folks" and the "RTP folks" over the
proper registration and meaning of MIME content-types.
You're defining the vocabulary now, and have the chance for
establishing a reasonable context. Once it's being used for two
purposes with conflicting requirements, it's too late to fix it.
This document SHOULD give guidance for usage, saying at least:
- whether it's intended that several of these values can be used
together
I'd assume yes, in general, but defining that seems to be the role of
the protocol using these elements, not a registry.
I think of the registry like a dictionary. A dictionary does not define
which words you can use together.
Yes, it does. By implication, a dictionary is for a language, and a
language is (among other things) a set of rules on how to put the
words together - and it VERY strongly implies that in order to
understand a word's meaning, you have to look at its context.
But it's easy to forget about the enormous amount of baggage we have
when considering a concept like "word", and that there's so little
baggage attached to a label type like this one.
- whether it's intended that a sequence of location types gives a
progressively more precise set of terms (in which case
internationalizing the last type you understand is appropriate) or
names an intersection of the classes (in which case you would have
to internationalize all of them).
There is no implication of hierarchy. In general, this seems difficult
to achieve since not all location types are hierarchical. For example,
an airport might contain a bank or a shopping-area, but that does not
make either a subcategory of an airport.
Good - then say so!
I also don't understand the need for I18N, since these are tokens that
would be translated by a local application, not rendered to users.
My mistake - this should have been "localize".
To illustrate: In the flat case, "restroom, cafe, airport" could be
localized as "Toalett, <ukjent sted>, Flyplass" in Norwegian if the
application doesn't know the translation of "cafe"; in the
hierarchical case, one could imagine "McDonalds, cafe, eating-place,
public building, indoors" - it would be OK to localize that as
"Spisested" if "cafe" isn't known.
- whether having a text string alongside it (the "note" above) is a
recommended practice.
That's again an RPID issue. Not every protocol using these tokens will
have notes.
There's no second protocol at the moment, so you have the chance to
provide guidance...
It MAY be appropriate to say something about field of use, like
RPID does ("what types of communication is appropriate" would lead
one to distinguish between "driving a car" and "passenger in a
car", while one could imagine that other usages might want to
distinguish between "expensive restaurant" and "cheap restaurant").
We are not trying to define a service location protocol that describes
numerical properties of locations. I don't know how to rule this out by
legal wording; presumably the expert reviewer can make common-sense
judgement.
Legal wording isn't what I'm looking for. Hints to the reviewer
about what the WG considers "common sense" would be helpful.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf