From: JFC Morfin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 22 2007 - 13:21:22 CDT
At 16:44 22/06/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
>I would like to clarify the "we" in your statement. As you are neither a
>member of AFNOR or ISO the wording of the BSI submitted ISO NWIP for
>Internationalized Country Codes is not within your remit and participants in
>this forum maybe mislead into believing differently by the wording of some
>of your emails.
I have no doubt you can pass the infomation you think appropriate to
ISO TC46 and AFNOR. Even if sometimes you may not be fully informed.
We the people" (I relate with on this list and others, include
several TC46/WG2 Members from several countries) may:
- simply want to help you best tuning what you suggest to become our
common terminology (my personnal intent)
- not want to blankly support an ISO NWIP Intenationalized Country
Codes you advertise with an odd name and keep so secret.
As I told you: if that secret NWIP of yours is appoved, your plan is
financed, and your project is completed, I will necessarily be one of
your first users (if I am not dead - you may recall I wait for your
ISO 639-6 preliminary table since Dec. 2005). The "debbie_class" is
already in our metadata and in our bases for the proposed NWIP. I
will also be one of your first disseminators and advocate, if your
product is good. "We the users of the world" want only to make sure
your AU/GB/US adequate poposition (which has its room as such)
equally cross-desserves the 189 other national cultural spaces, and
your documented 30.000 geolinguistic units.
I see your signing. Is an "author" different from a "proposed project
leader"? Is this why I heared about another person for the project
itself? I understand you short the long NWIP title, but would it not
be better to write "ISO NWIP Internationalized (non-ASCII) Country
Code", because the implied "internationalized" ISO definition is
important to everyone, we discover this way you are at several codes
in one shot, and if I do know what a country internationalised code
element might be, I have no idea of what an intenationalised country might be.
>I am, however, quite happy to receive representations from you on
>the meaning of Internationalization and to pass those onto ISO TC46
>Author ISO NWIP Internationalized Country Codes
> > At 07:56 20/06/2007, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > >If you could clarify/elaborate, please do so.
> > Jefsey Mofin wrote:
> > This is a Unicode terminology question. Is the
> > "internationalised (non-ASCII)" equivalence always acceptable
> > in Unicode people's mind.
> > For example, I do not understand "internationalised" as
> > excluding ASCII. The IETF IDN routines do not exclude ASCII
> > domain name. I just want to know if there is a common
> > definition or not. If not that might create misunderstanding
> > or unnecessary problem we can still correct since the NWIP is
> > under circulation.
> > Thank you
> > jfc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 22 2007 - 13:26:17 CDT