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

Re: CORRECTION: Document Action: 'Terminology Used inInternationalization in the IETF' to Informational



FWIW, I think the document is far better than having nothing in this area.
For instance, there was language in the charsets considerations document
that Ted Hardie's been working on that was just majorly confusing to
someone used to other terminology - and I pointed him to this document
rather than going into details.
I completely agree.

John has a particular axe to grind (he wants the influence of the Unicode
Consortium on the world's internationalization efforts reduced), and is
grinding that axe pretty hard.
Indeed. And if past experience is any indication (e.g., the charset terminology
discussion) it will turn out to be that it is only his private splitting maul
that's on the grinder.
I didn't find the energy to step into the fight between John and Paul -
they're sufficiently opposed to each other that even when they seem to
everyone else to be saying the same thing, they both agree that they
disagree.

My previous efforts to generate IETF activity in the area (INTLOC BOF in
Salt Lake City) failed. And Paul is attempting to deliver something that
the community needs.

Where should we go from here?
I say reword the problematic paragraph per Allison and Randy's suggestions
and move on.

				Ned