Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:37:16 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF
	Author(s)       : Paul Hoffman
                          John C Klensin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-01.txt
	Pages           : 46
	Date            : 2011-05-20

   This document provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when
   discussing internationalization.  The purpose is to help frame
   discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF
   and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-01.txt

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 22:32:19 -0400

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Applications Area
> Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
>

This version of the internationalization terminology draft
incorporates all the accepted suggestions and comments, and is ready
for working group last call.  Please review this version and post any
pressing issues to <[email-masked]> by 3 June, 2011.

Note that not all suggestions were accepted, and in that case the
editors should have responded to that effect.  We're looking for new
issues, here, and not repetitions of old discussions.  If there have
already been multiple rounds of discussion and consensus didn't
support the change, that's why it's not in there.

Again, being issues to <[email-masked]> by 3 June.

Barry, appsawg chair

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 20:58:27 -0600

<hat type='individual'/>

> pressing issues to <[email-masked]> by 3 June, 2011.

"A language is a way that humans interact"? I'd substitute "communicate"
for "interact" (humans also interact by trading things, playing games,
fighting, sharing meals, etc.).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 07:46:35 +0300

21.05.2011 5:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> pressing issues to<[email-masked]>  by 3 June, 2011.
Thanks for the new revision.  It addresses many of my comments.

I agree with Peter's comment above.  I was trying to submit a very 
similar proposal to -00 and I'll try once more now, for -01.

The language term definition is a bit obscure in the current revision of 
the document.  Therefore, I propose the following clarification, 
considering the comment from Peter above.

>   language
>
>        A language is a form of communication between humans using
>        words, which might be either spoken, written or gestured
>        and is a subject to a particular grammar and other rules.
>        <NONE>
>
>        [as in current draft]
Please, also re-consider my proposal to control character definition I 
posted in 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02589.html.

Another minor editorial comment on -01.  Shouldn't the entries in the 
document be formed as in RFC 4949 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949)?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Peter
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 03:50:31 -0400

--On Friday, May 20, 2011 20:58 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> "A language is a way that humans interact"? I'd substitute
> "communicate" for "interact" (humans also interact by trading
> things, playing games, fighting, sharing meals, etc.).

Sorry.  Meant to pick this up in this (-01) iteration.  It
slipped through the cracks.  Now changed in the working version
of -02 -- it won't get lost again.

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 04:21:56 -0400

--On Saturday, May 21, 2011 07:46 +0300 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I agree with Peter's comment above.  I was trying to submit a
> very similar proposal to -00 and I'll try once more now, for
> -01.
> 
> The language term definition is a bit obscure in the current
> revision of the document.  Therefore, I propose the following
> clarification, considering the comment from Peter above.
> 
>>   language
>> 
>>        A language is a form of communication between humans
>>        using words, which might be either spoken, written or
>>        gestured and is a subject to a particular grammar and
>>        other rules. <NONE>

As I think was explained to you earlier, the assumption that
languages are bound to, or defined by, "a particular grammar and
other rules" has become wildly controversial.  From some
perspectives and lines of reasoning or research, it is also flat
wrong.  If you are interested in that set of arguments and where
they lead, I think some of us could recommend some things for
you to read.  But, unless you can offer a persuasive reason why
a definition that embroils use in the arguments about grammars
and transformations as the defining properties of a language
would make a significant difference in the IETF
internationalization context, I think we should leave the
definition alone (corrected as per Peter's note and my response).

>>        [as in current draft]
> Please, also re-consider my proposal to control character
> definition I posted in

The new text about control characters in -01 was intended to
address your concerns, including your suggestion to point to
ISO/IEC 6429.  Please read that new paragraph (starting
"Occasionally, in other vocabularies,").  We see considerable
advantage in using the Unicode definition rather than making one
up.  Even if we were to make one up, your definition is
questionable because the first paragraph would classify many
characters (code points) as control characters that many
standards, including Unicode, assign to other categories.
Similarly, in some real sense, any character "control[s]
handling of data; they can be considered to be and in-band
signaling in the context of character encoding" because
traditional graphical characters simply control their own
representations.  Or, if you want it the other way around, the
format effector control characters (e.g., VT, HT, and often BEL)
control page/display layout but not handling of data in the
usual sense; others, either particular control characters in
selected applications or others, notably ESC followed by a
graphic character in a particular range, form CSI sequences that
were traditionally used for terminal control, not handling of
the graphical character data themselves.

We have tried to accommodate your concerns by putting in the new
paragraph but the bottom line remains that control characters
(using the narrow definition)  are largely irrelevant to
internationalization.  Trying to provide an explanation here
that is both accurate and comprehensive would add a great deal
of clutter with little benefit.   We can try to do so if the WG
concludes that a more comprehensive definition is appropriate,
but I'd hope people would consider the question of how much such
a definition would contribute to an understanding of
internationalization (rather than an understanding of coded
character set terminology) before recommending that.

> Another minor editorial comment on -01.  Shouldn't the entries
> in the document be formed as in RFC 4949
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949)?

No.  The RFC Editor is free to reformat as they think
appropriate.  But, with all of the definitions sections in
Standards-Track documents that one could look at, why do you
believe that the entries here should be structured to conform to
an Informational document that was not even processed through
the IETF stream?

    john

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 18:18:50 +0300

21.05.2011 11:21, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>         other rules.<NONE>
Considering the issue to be really controversial, I won't insist on 
putting my text and won't object to leaving the existing one.  I 
understand there is no support of such idea so it makes no sense for me 
to continue pushing it forward.
> the graphical character data themselves.
I see the current definition should probably go to the "narrative" part 
(after mentioning the source) since it is concerned to Unicode's 
understanding of what the control char is.  If we decide to put the 
definition of "control character" in this document at all, just 
mentioning some examples of them isn't enough.  Otherwise, if the 
control character is hardly related to internalization, it shouldn't be 
mentioned in the document at all.  Let's not have double standards.
> an Informational document that was not even processed through
I believe so because this will make seeking the definition easier.  I 
was trying to find the definition of "coded character set" (as I 
remember) in your document, and bumped into a dozen of occasions of this 
term in the text.  Having "$ term" is better for such purposes.

.Mykyta Yevstifeyev