RE: Charset policy - Post Munich

[Martin J. Dürst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>]

Sorry I'm somewhat late with responding.

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Ned Freed answered me:

> > Specifically, I also agree that language tags are a big help
> > to current stupid machines. But if we put an absolute requirement
> > for language tags into our policy, a requirement that in the
> > extreme might say: "Every protocol has to be able to language
> > tag all the characters it sends around, with potentially
> > different tags for each character.",
> 
> Martin, this is nothing but a strawman and you know it.

NO! If it were just a strawman, I wouldn't have any reason
to mention it. The above sentence is my quintessencial
summary of a position that has quite recently been used
in discussions you have participated in. The above is far
from being a strawman, and you know it.


> This also presupposes a level of cluelessness on the part of WG chairs, area
> directors and directorates, the IESG, and the IAB that I almost find offensive.
> We do have checks and balances in this process, you know.

I know. And I had absolutely no intent to offend any of the people or
functions you have mentionned above. But making explicit that language
tagging is something one should think about, and try to find a solution
that is well adapted to the protocol, will be a great help in avoiding
discussions as they have taken place, in which experienced protocol
designers have refused to do serious technical discussions because
they thought they had some document to back up their claims (which
they didn't), and the truth on their side anyway, and claimed to
do this in the name of the IETF.


Anyway, if you an others assure me that my concerns are not
(or not anymore) justified, I am ready to accept that.
I sincerely hope I don't have to come back to it later.


Regards,	Martin.