From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 12:38:31 EDT
This contribution was forwarded by Doug Ewell to the Unicode list
"FYI". Keld makes a comment toward the end which is extremely
objectionable. I have inserted a comment of my own at that point.
>From: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <email@example.com>
>To: "John C Klensin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Cc: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <email@example.com>; "Erik Nordmark"
><Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>; "Simon Josefsson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:06 am
>Subject: Re: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement
>On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:10:11PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, 15 October, 2002 18:37 +0200 Keld Jørn Simonsen
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 06:06:26PM +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>> >> > I would still like it to be called the ISO 10646 repertoire.
>> >> Doing that change to this added text would be very odd given
>> >> that that the rest of the document has no mention of ISO
>> >> 10646. Thus I think consistency is the overriding concern
> > >> here.
>> > Is that not a major change from IETF policy? We should mention
>> > ISO standards when they are applicable.
>> Keld, this is an old argument in the IDN WG, and I think ISO
>> basically decided to lose it a year or two ago. While, I, too,
>> prefer to reference ISO standards where possible, the situation
>> here is that the IDN effort needed both a character and code
>> point repertoire and a collection of norms about how those code
>> points were to be used, compared, etc. My preference, and I
>> think that of the IETF generally, would have been to reference
>> ISO Standards for all of this but, as you know, the
>> complementary "usage" standards did not follow the code point
>> ones. Even where TRs exist, ISO generally doesn't like having
>> its TRs referenced normatively.
>> We approached ISO about the problem of the missing standards at
>> the JTC1 level and stressed that, if they couldn't respond
>> usefully and fairly quickly, we would have to rely on UTC. We
>> didn't get a response for a long time, and then, in my opinion,
>> were brushed off. And you are all-too-aware what happened when
>> we tried to work something with SC22... from my perspective, not
> > only did we not get active cooperation, we were deliberately
>> insulted by their "agreeing" to something we had previously told
>> them (formally and informally) we would not accept. While this
>> was going on, the Unicode folks were actively working with the
>> WG, inviting IETF participation in their meetings and in
>> liaisons with on their Board, and trying to be responsive to our
>> needs in their ongoing work. I think they are entitled to
>> recognition for those efforts, including having their preferred
>> name for the CCS and associated materials used. And, if JTC1
>> wants to isolate themselves from the Internet in this area, and
>> to hint that they are doing so because the IETF is just not
>> important enough to deal with on a peer basis, I don't see any
>> reason to respond by advertising the relevant ISO Standard in
> > more than a footnote.
>Could you give me a reference to the approach from IETF to JTC1?
>As the liaison officer from JTC1/SC2 with IETF I cannot remember
>such a request, so I would like to see it.
>The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it,
L2 is the US Member Body committee responsible for
internationalization matters, and as such cannot "infiltrate" SC22
any more than NSAI/ICTSCC/SC4, the Irish Member Body committee
responsible for internationalization matters can.
>and tries to sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF,
This is untrue. Both the UTC and L2 cooperate with both JTC1 and IETF.
>by not having any cooperation being done, like delaying liaison or
>making it in a way that is unacceptable. And also by having ISO
>standards in the area
>voted down, delayed, or turned into TRs. And then working smoothly with IETF
>directly. Their policy sems to be efficient, and this is the behaviour
>that you are rewarding, IMHO.
The SC22/WG20 "ISO standards" to which you refer were of poor quality
and doubtful utility, and were "voted down, delayed, and turned into
TRs" because they had little value and should not have been made into
ISO standards. (Indeed their value as TRs is questionable, in the
opinion of a number of members of ICTSCC/SC4.) A number of countries
opposed those work items, and for good reason, in my view.
> > Just my opinion, of course. But, if my analysis is correct or
>> rings true, the problem you are addressing needs to be raised
>> within JTC1, not in this working group or over these documents.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com 48B Gleann na Carraige; Cill Fhionntain; Baile Átha Cliath 13; Éire Telephone +353 86 807 9169 * * Fax +353 1 832 2189 (by arrangement)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 13:53:33 EDT