From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 13:43:46 EDT
> The problem with SC22 is that Unicode/L2 has infiltrated it, and tries to
> sabotage the cooperation between ISO and IETF, by not having any
"infiltrated"? I respectfully disagree with Doug on this. Certainly SC22 has
not been "infiltrated". There are some people from on a particular working
group, WG20, that are in support of Unicode, but others who are not.
But completely independent of Unicode, the vast majority of the "standards"
that were being proposed *to* the WG20 (such as the internationalization
API, or 14652) were -- how can I put this most charitably -- of extremely
low quality. Look at the negative comments in
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG20/docs/n857-n3261.pdf
for example. The only reason, I believe, that it passed -- even as a TR (not
a standard), even with huge sections marked as controversial -- was that a
number of countries tend to simply vote without reading the text.
The one exception is ISO 14651. With a lot of hard work by people on the
committee, both those in support of Unicode and those not, the collation
standard has turned out well.
Mark
__________________________________
http://www.macchiato.com
► “Eppur si muove” ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 08:17
Subject: Fw: [idn] Re: IDNA problem statement
> FYI
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld@dkuug.dk>
> To: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
> Cc: "Keld Jørn Simonsen" <keld@dkuug.dk>; "Erik Nordmark"
<Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>; "Simon Josefsson" <jas@extundo.com>;
> <idn@ops.ietf.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
> > <keld@dkuug.dk> 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, and tries to
> sabotage the cooperation between ISO 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.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > john
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 16 2002 - 14:34:30 EDT